To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence.

The optimal duration of oral anticoagulation in patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism is uncertain. Testing of d-dimer levels may play a role in the assessment of the need for prolonged anticoagulation. We performed d-dimer testing 1 month after the discontinuation of anticoagulation in patients with a first unprovoked proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism who had received a vitamin K antagonist for at least 3 months. Patients with a normal d-dimer level did not resume anticoagulation, whereas those with an abnormal d-dimer level were randomly assigned either to resume or to discontinue treatment. The study outcome was the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding during an average follow-up of 1.4 years. The d-dimer assay was abnormal in 223 of 608 patients (36.7%). A total of 18 events occurred among the 120 patients who stopped anticoagulation (15.0%), as compared with 3 events among the 103 patients who resumed anticoagulation (2.9%), for an adjusted hazard ratio of 4.26 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 14.6; P=0.02). Thromboembolism recurred in 24 of 385 patients with a normal d-dimer level (6.2%). Among patients who stopped anticoagulation, the adjusted hazard ratio for recurrent thromboembolism among those with an abnormal d-dimer level, as compared with those with a normal d-dimer level, was 2.27 (95% CI, 1.15 to 4.46; P=0.02). Patients with an abnormal d-dimer level 1 month after the discontinuation of anticoagulation have a significant incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism, which is reduced by the resumption of anticoagulation. The optimal course of anticoagulation in patients with a normal d-dimer level has not been clearly established. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00264277.)