J
Joerg J Meerpohl
Researcher at University of Freiburg
Publications - 336
Citations - 37749
Joerg J Meerpohl is an academic researcher from University of Freiburg. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 57, co-authored 291 publications receiving 28187 citations. Previous affiliations of Joerg J Meerpohl include Harvard University & McMaster University.
Papers
More filters
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
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Pablo Alonso-Coello,Victor M. Montori,Elie A. Akl,Ben Djulbegovic,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Susan L Norris,John W Williams,David C. Atkins,Joerg J Meerpohl,Holger J. Schünemann +14 more
TL;DR: In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low- quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence comes from studies that suffer from a high risk of bias.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Pablo Alonso-Coello,David Rind,Philip J. Devereaux,Victor M. Montori,Bo Freyschuss,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Roman Jaeschke,John W Williams,Mohammad Hassan Murad,David A. Sinclair,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Joerg J Meerpohl,Craig Whittington,Kristian Thorlund,Jeffrey C Andrews,Holger J. Schünemann +19 more
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.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Victor M. Montori,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Pablo Alonso-Coello,Ben Djulbegovic,David C. Atkins,Yngve Falck-Ytter,John W Williams,Joerg J Meerpohl,Susan L Norris,Elie A. Akl,Holger J. Schünemann +14 more
TL;DR: In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low- quality evidence, but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is associated with a high risk of publication bias.