The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence

GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence
GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence
Objectives: in this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Study design and settings: we focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables.

Results: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made.

Conclusions: with our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.
GRADE, economic evaluations, costs, quality of evidence, risk of bias, health technology assessment
140-150
Brunetti, M.
378d2553-b065-4779-9567-83f2763f62da
Shemilt, I.
fad97c16-6c30-434c-9da1-15d2abfa119b
Pregno, S.
0b07b6a7-7c6c-4fa1-8653-5963fcadfed4
Vale, L.
77568662-b5ed-483b-bcaf-4ae99d29c39c
Oxman, A.D.
d4da9d0f-2d2f-42e4-808f-68a367d2416d
Lord, J.
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Sisk, J.
43097be1-0b85-444e-ba81-40226ca4c428
Ruiz, F.
bdb38420-a163-4b96-9fa5-5bf44b1013c5
Hill, S.
84cd4c7d-ceee-4ae2-b4cf-a2517e49aded
Guyatt, G.H.
c18fd676-e256-4178-a090-52e0be4d6035
Jaeschke, R.
385b8e99-eba4-4ded-8276-fd0ae959a474
Helfand, M.
a8cc2450-b864-4fd3-b3e4-f6c8ed500cc7
Harbour, R.
40576b2f-283b-42a1-8b68-25f86aa560ca
Davoli, M.
58f0dd6e-1ede-4b36-b0f5-855562352ee6
Amato, L.
0c3e13d4-5c1c-44d4-9be0-ababad3555a4
Liberati, A.
6d90a2c3-e4f4-4519-a741-0c31a52d4f35
Schunemann, H.J.
eb3ceb01-391d-47eb-93af-3ccbc2729144
Brunetti, M.
378d2553-b065-4779-9567-83f2763f62da
Shemilt, I.
fad97c16-6c30-434c-9da1-15d2abfa119b
Pregno, S.
0b07b6a7-7c6c-4fa1-8653-5963fcadfed4
Vale, L.
77568662-b5ed-483b-bcaf-4ae99d29c39c
Oxman, A.D.
d4da9d0f-2d2f-42e4-808f-68a367d2416d
Lord, J.
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Sisk, J.
43097be1-0b85-444e-ba81-40226ca4c428
Ruiz, F.
bdb38420-a163-4b96-9fa5-5bf44b1013c5
Hill, S.
84cd4c7d-ceee-4ae2-b4cf-a2517e49aded
Guyatt, G.H.
c18fd676-e256-4178-a090-52e0be4d6035
Jaeschke, R.
385b8e99-eba4-4ded-8276-fd0ae959a474
Helfand, M.
a8cc2450-b864-4fd3-b3e4-f6c8ed500cc7
Harbour, R.
40576b2f-283b-42a1-8b68-25f86aa560ca
Davoli, M.
58f0dd6e-1ede-4b36-b0f5-855562352ee6
Amato, L.
0c3e13d4-5c1c-44d4-9be0-ababad3555a4
Liberati, A.
6d90a2c3-e4f4-4519-a741-0c31a52d4f35
Schunemann, H.J.
eb3ceb01-391d-47eb-93af-3ccbc2729144

Brunetti, M., Shemilt, I., Pregno, S., Vale, L., Oxman, A.D., Lord, J., Sisk, J., Ruiz, F., Hill, S., Guyatt, G.H., Jaeschke, R., Helfand, M., Harbour, R., Davoli, M., Amato, L., Liberati, A. and Schunemann, H.J. (2013) GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66 (2), 140-150. (doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012). (PMID:22863410)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objectives: in this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Study design and settings: we focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables.

Results: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made.

Conclusions: with our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 5 April 2012
Published date: 2013
Additional Information: Brunetti, Massimo Shemilt, Ian Pregno, Silvia Vale, Luke Oxman, Andrew D Lord, Joanne Sisk, Jane Ruiz, Francis Hill, Suzanne Guyatt, Gordon H Jaeschke, Roman Helfand, Mark Harbour, Robin Davoli, Marina Amato, Laura Liberati, Alessandro Schunemann, Holger J eng Review 2012/08/07 06:00 J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):140-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
Keywords: GRADE, economic evaluations, costs, quality of evidence, risk of bias, health technology assessment
Organisations: Primary Care & Population Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 382167
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/382167
PURE UUID: 3737da71-1c74-4599-94fe-77b4c684f8f0
ORCID for J. Lord: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1086-1624

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 18 Jan 2016 11:20
Last modified: 20 Jul 2019 00:34

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: M. Brunetti
Author: I. Shemilt
Author: S. Pregno
Author: L. Vale
Author: A.D. Oxman
Author: J. Lord ORCID iD
Author: J. Sisk
Author: F. Ruiz
Author: S. Hill
Author: G.H. Guyatt
Author: R. Jaeschke
Author: M. Helfand
Author: R. Harbour
Author: M. Davoli
Author: L. Amato
Author: A. Liberati
Author: H.J. Schunemann

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×