Response to commentary by Mattos et al. (2024)

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Evidence-based practice

Background:

• Concerns were raised regarding the certainty of evidence assessments in a previous publication.
• These critiques suggested the assessments were overly permissive and deviated from Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.

Purpose of the Study:

• To reply to comments by Mattos et al. concerning the certainty of evidence ratings.
• To clarify the application and interpretation of the GRADE methodology in evidence assessment.

Main Methods:

• The authors respond to specific critiques regarding their application of the GRADE framework.
• The response emphasizes the subjective judgment involved in assessing certainty of evidence.

Main Results:

• The authors acknowledge the differing viewpoints on their evidence certainty ratings.
• They assert that the value of GRADE lies in transparency, not just definitive ratings.

Conclusions:

• The authors caution against a rigid, formulaic application of the GRADE methodology.
• They advocate for a balanced approach that values transparency and acknowledges the subjective nature of evidence assessment.