Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/57611
Title: GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
Authors: Vivian A. Welch
Elie A. Akl
Kevin Pottie
Mohammed T. Ansari
Matthias Briel
Robin Christensen
Antonio Dans
Leonila Dans
Javier Eslava-Schmalbach
Gordon Guyatt
Monica Hultcrantz
Janet Jull
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Eddy Lang
Elizabeth Matovinovic
Joerg J. Meerpohl
Rachael L. Morton
Annhild Mosdol
M. Hassan Murad
Jennifer Petkovic
Holger Schünemann
Ravi Sharaf
Bev Shea
Jasvinder A. Singh
Ivan Solà
Roger Stanev
Airton Stein
Lehana Thabaneii
Thomy Tonia
Mario Tristan
Sigurd Vitols
Joseph Watine
Peter Tugwell
Authors: Vivian A. Welch
Elie A. Akl
Kevin Pottie
Mohammed T. Ansari
Matthias Briel
Robin Christensen
Antonio Dans
Leonila Dans
Javier Eslava-Schmalbach
Gordon Guyatt
Monica Hultcrantz
Janet Jull
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Eddy Lang
Elizabeth Matovinovic
Joerg J. Meerpohl
Rachael L. Morton
Annhild Mosdol
M. Hassan Murad
Jennifer Petkovic
Holger Schünemann
Ravi Sharaf
Bev Shea
Jasvinder A. Singh
Ivan Solà
Roger Stanev
Airton Stein
Lehana Thabaneii
Thomy Tonia
Mario Tristan
Sigurd Vitols
Joseph Watine
Peter Tugwell
Keywords: Medicine
Issue Date: 1-Oct-2017
Abstract: © 2017 The Authors Objectives The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.
URI: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85023780664&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/57611
ISSN: 18785921
08954356
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.