Table 7.
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings table for the outcomes of the systematic review and meta-analysis.
| Quality assessment | Summary of results | Importance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Study Design | Methodological Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Number of participants | Effect | General quality | |
| Accuracy (95% CI) | ||||||||||
| “Is cheilososcopy a reliable method for estimating sex?” | ||||||||||
| 7 | Diagnostic accuracy studies | Not seriousa | Seriousb | Not seriousc | Seriousd | none | 1547 | 76.76 (65.81–87.70) | ⨁⨁ LOW | Critical |
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
aMajority of the studies presented low risk of bias; b The heterogeneity (I2) was high (> 75%) and no overlapping of effect estimates; c Evidence stems from an adequate population; d Wide credible confidence interval.