Identification (biology)

Risk assessment

Internal medicine

Geometry

Mathematics

Computer security

Computer science

Botany

Medicine

Certainty

Biology

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Objective null The objective of this study was to provide guidance on the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine certainty in estimates of association between prognostic factors and future outcomes. null null null Study Design and Setting null We developed our guidance through an iterative process that involved review of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prognostic factors, consultation with members, feedback, presentation, and discussion at the GRADE Working Group meetings. null null null Results null For questions of prognosis, a body of observational evidence (potentially including patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials) begins as high certainty in the evidence. The five domains of GRADE for rating down certainty in the evidence, that is, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias, as well as the domains for rating up, also apply to estimates of associations between prognostic factors and outcomes. One should determine if their ratings do not consider (noncontextualized) or consider (contextualized) the clinical context as this will may result in variable judgments on certainty of the evidence. null null null Conclusions null The same principles GRADE proposed for bodies of evidence addressing treatment and overall prognosis work well in assessing individual prognostic factors, both in noncontextualized and contextualized settings.

GRADE Guidelines 28: Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks