Replies to comments made by Mattos et al. (see record 2025-49982-003) on the original article (see record 2024-19816-001). Mattos et al. critiqued our assessments of the certainty of evidence as being overly permissive and not adhering to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group's guidelines. GRADE has become an international standard to describe the level of confidence that investigators have in estimates of effects. Like the risk of bias evaluations, determining the certainty of evidence involves subjective judgment. The true value of GRADE is not in yielding a definitive evidence certainty rating but in its emphasis on transparency. While we acknowledge and respect the differing viewpoints of Mattos et al. regarding our ratings, we caution against the rigid and formulaic use of the GRADE methodology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

对 Mattos 等人（2024 年）的评论的回应。


对 Mattos 等人对原始文章（见记录 2024-19816-001）的评论的回复（见记录 2024-19816-001）。Mattos 等人批评我们对证据质量的评估过于宽容，并且没有遵守建议分级评估、开发和评估 （GRADE） 工作组的指南。GRADE 已成为描述研究者对效应估计的置信度的国际标准。与偏倚风险评估一样，确定证据的质量涉及主观判断。GRADE 的真正价值不在于产生明确的证据质量评级，而在于它强调透明度。虽然我们承认并尊重 Mattos 等人对我们的评级的不同观点，但我们警告不要僵化和公式化地使用 GRADE 方法。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。