IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Bayesian Networks to Assess the Quality of Evidence from Research Synthesis: 1

Author

Listed:
  • Gavin B Stewart
  • Julian P T Higgins
  • Holger Schünemann
  • Nick Meader

Abstract

Background: The grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach is widely implemented in systematic reviews, health technology assessment and guideline development organisations throughout the world. A key advantage to this approach is that it aids transparency regarding judgments on the quality of evidence. However, the intricacies of making judgments about research methodology and evidence make the GRADE system complex and challenging to apply without training. Methods: We have developed a semi-automated quality assessment tool (SAQAT) l based on GRADE. This is informed by responses by reviewers to checklist questions regarding characteristics that may lead to unreliability. These responses are then entered into the Bayesian network to ascertain the probabilities of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias conditional on review characteristics. The model then combines these probabilities to provide a probability for each of the GRADE overall quality categories. We tested the model using a range of plausible scenarios that guideline developers or review authors could encounter. Results: Overall, the model reproduced GRADE judgements for a range of scenarios. Potential advantages over standard assessment are use of explicit and consistent weightings for different review characteristics, forcing consideration of important but sometimes neglected characteristics and principled downgrading where small but important probabilities of downgrading are accrued across domains. Conclusions: Bayesian networks have considerable potential for use as tools to assess the validity of research evidence. The key strength of such networks lies in the provision of a statistically coherent method for combining probabilities across a complex framework based on both belief and evidence. In addition to providing tools for less experienced users to implement reliability assessment, the potential for sensitivity analyses and automation may be beneficial for application and the methodological development of reliability tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Gavin B Stewart & Julian P T Higgins & Holger Schünemann & Nick Meader, 2015. "The Use of Bayesian Networks to Assess the Quality of Evidence from Research Synthesis: 1," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114497
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114497
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114497&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114497?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexis Llewellyn & Craig Whittington & Gavin Stewart & Julian PT Higgins & Nick Meader, 2015. "The Use of Bayesian Networks to Assess the Quality of Evidence from Research Synthesis: 2. Inter-Rater Reliability and Comparison with Standard GRADE Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Francesco De Pretis & Jürgen Landes, 2021. "EA3: A softmax algorithm for evidence appraisal aggregation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-23, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114497. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.