G
Gordon H. Guyatt
Researcher at McMaster University
Publications - 1749
Citations - 262329
Gordon H. Guyatt is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 231, co-authored 1620 publications receiving 228631 citations. Previous affiliations of Gordon H. Guyatt include Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center & Cayetano Heredia University.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Regina Kunz,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Pablo Alonso-Coello,Holger J. Schünemann +6 more
TL;DR: The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.
Journal ArticleDOI
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
David C. Atkins,Dana Best,Peter A. Briss,Martin P Eccles,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Signe Flottorp,Gordon H. Guyatt,Robin Harbour,Margaret C Haugh,David Henry,Suzanne Hill,Roman Jaeschke,Gillian Leng,Alessandro Liberati,Nicola Magrini,James Mason,Philippa Middleton,Jacek Mrukowicz,Dianne L. O'Connell,Andrew D Oxman,Bob Phillips,Holger J. Schünemann,Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer,H. Varonen,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,John W Williams,Stephanie Zaza +26 more
TL;DR: A system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts is developed, and a summary of the approach from the perspective of a guideline user is presented.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Elie A. Akl,Regina Kunz,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Jan Brozek,Susan L Norris,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Paul Glasziou,Hans deBeer,Roman Jaeschke,David Rind,Joerg J Meerpohl,Philipp Dahm,Holger J. Schünemann +14 more
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.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Howard Balshem,Mark Helfand,Mark Helfand,Holger J. Schünemann,Andrew D Oxman,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Joerg J Meerpohl,Susan L Norris,Gordon H. Guyatt +11 more
TL;DR: The approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies.
Journal ArticleDOI
Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference
TL;DR: An approach to elucidating the significance of changes in score in quality of life instruments by comparing them to global ratings of change is developed, and a plausible range within which the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) falls is established.