A methodologic survey on use of the GRADE approach in evidence syntheses published in high-impact factor urology and nephrology journals

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.