ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
A methodologic survey on use of the GRADE approach in evidence syntheses published in high-impact factor urology and nephrology journals.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gut microbial signatures and immunotherapy outcomes in NSCLC and melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Designing Implementable Deprescribing Recommendations: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professional Perspectives.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- A methodologic survey on use of the GRADE approach in evidence syntheses published in high-impact factor neurology journals.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- The impact of educational interventions on the competence of nurses and midwives in neonatal resuscitation in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- Population dynamics and digitalization: implications for COVID-19 data sources in South Africa-a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Strong recommendations from low certainty evidence: a cross-sectional analysis of a suite of national guidelines.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo identify and describe the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for rating the certainty of systematic reviews (SRs) evidence published in urology and nephrology journals.
methodsSRs that were published in the top ten "urology and nephrology" journals with the highest impact factor according to the 2020 Journal Citation Reports (covering 2016-2020) were systematically searched and evaluated using the GRADE approach.
resultsA total of 445 SRs were researched. Sixty SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or non-randomized studies (NRSs) were evaluated using the GRADE approach. Forty-nine SRs (11%) rated the outcome-specific certainty of evidence (n = 29 in 2019-2020). We identified 811 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 544 RCT ratings) as follows: very low (33.0%); low (32.1%); moderate (24.5%); and high (10.4%). Very low and high certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 55.0% and 0.4% of ratings in SRs of NRSs compared to 23.0% and 15.3% in SRs of RCTs. The certainty of evidence for RCTs and NRSs was downgraded most often for risk of bias and imprecision.
conclusionsWe recommend increased emphasis on acceptance of the GRADE approach, as well as optimal use of the GRADE approach, in the synthesis of urinary tract evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.