Defining certainty of net benefit: a GRADE concept paper

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology is used to assess and report certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. This GRADE concept article is not GRADE guidance but introduces certainty of net benefit, defined as the certainty that the balance between desirable and undesirable health effects is favourable. Determining certainty of net benefit requires considering certainty of effect estimates, the expected importance of outcomes and variability in importance, and the interaction of these concepts. Certainty of net harm is the certainty that the net effect is unfavourable. Guideline panels using or testing this approach might limit strong recommendations to actions with a high certainty of net benefit or against actions with a moderate or high certainty of net harm. Recommendations may differ in direction or strength from that suggested by the certainty of net benefit or harm when influenced by cost, equity, acceptability or feasibility.

[1]  Catriona Dutreuilh,et al.  Introduction , 2019 .

[2]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-Risk of bias and indirectness. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  F. Godlee,et al.  Better together: patient partnership in medical journals , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[4]  C. Bombardier,et al.  A Bayesian model that jointly considers comparative effectiveness research and patients' preferences may help inform GRADE recommendations: an application to rheumatoid arthritis treatment recommendations. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  Tracy A Wolff,et al.  Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Methods for Understanding Certainty and Net Benefit When Making Recommendations. , 2018, American journal of preventive medicine.

[6]  Gerasimos S Filippatos,et al.  2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  Mohammed T Ansari,et al.  The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  M. Singer,et al.  Effect of Conservative vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Mortality Among Patients in an Intensive Care Unit: The Oxygen-ICU Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2016, JAMA.

[9]  H. Schünemann Interpreting GRADE's levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision? , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Tianjing Li,et al.  Evidence selection for a prescription drug's benefit-harm assessment: challenges and recommendations. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Longer- Versus Shorter-Duration Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Placement , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  Sacubitril valsartan for treating symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction , 2015 .

[13]  Akshay S. Desai,et al.  Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  David Rind,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Relationship between hospital readmission and mortality rates for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. , 2013, JAMA.

[16]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2012, Chest.

[17]  Laura Mauri,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. , 2011, Circulation.

[18]  Howard Balshem,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  H. Schünemann Guidelines 2.0: Do No Net Harm—The Future of Practice Guideline Development in Asthma and Other Diseases , 2011, Current allergy and asthma reports.

[20]  Michael Böhm,et al.  Ivabradine and outcomes in chronic heart failure (SHIFT): a randomised placebo-controlled study , 2010, The Lancet.

[21]  R. Ferrari,et al.  Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[22]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Going from evidence to recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Diana Petitti,et al.  Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Estimating Certainty and Magnitude of Net Benefit , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[24]  Cedric M. Smith,et al.  Origin and Uses of Primum Non Nocere—Above All, Do No Harm! , 2005, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[25]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  David R. Jones,et al.  An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment , 1999, BMJ.

[27]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1995 .