David Rind

TL;DR: The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes, and provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect.

TL;DR: It is suggested that examination of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provides the optimal primary approach to decisions regarding imprecision and rating down the quality of evidence is required if clinical action would differ if the upper versus the lower boundary of the CI represented the truth.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors updated the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society/Japanese Rensenshine Society/Latin American thoracic Association guideline on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treatment using systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

TL;DR: The authors used a global climate model to compare the effectiveness of many climate forcing agents for producing climate change and found that replacing traditional instantaneous and adjusted forcings with an easily computed alternative, Fs, yields a better predictor of climate change, i.e., its efficacies are closer to unity.