Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

Градация качества доказательств и силы рекомендаций
Gordon Guyatt, Holger J. Schünemann, Andrew D Oxman, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Yngve Falck–Ytter, Roman Jaeschke, James Mason, Suzanne Hill, David Henry, Alessandro Liberati, John W Williams, Robin Harbour, Bob Phillips, David C. Atkins, Martin Eccles, Signe Flottorp, Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer, Philippa Middleton, Dana Best, Peter A. Briss, Margaret Haugh, Gillian Leng, Nicola Magrini, Jacek Mrukowicz, Dianne O’Connell, Helena Varonen, Stephanie Zaza
2004-06-17

benefit-harm balanceclinical practice guidelinesgrading quality of evidenceresource utilisationstrength of recommendations
Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.
1
A systematic, explicit grading system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendations was developed for broad applicability across interventions and contexts.
2
Costs (resource utilization) must be considered as an important factor when making recommendations.
3
Existing inconsistencies among grading systems hinder critical appraisal and communication, motivating the need for a unified transparent system.
4
Strength of a recommendation should be based on balance of benefits versus harms, evidence quality, applicability to specific circumstances, and certainty of baseline risk.
5
The proposed system aims to balance simplicity with comprehensive, transparent consideration of all important judgment factors.

System for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations for clinical practice guidelines

How to make and communicate judgments about quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, including consideration of benefits versus harms, evidence quality, applicability to specific circumstances, baseline risk certainty, and costs

Publication Details
Publication Date
2004-06-17
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Gordon Guyatt
Holger J. Schünemann
Andrew D Oxman
Gunn Elisabeth Vist
Yngve Falck–Ytter
Roman Jaeschke
James Mason
Suzanne Hill
David Henry
Alessandro Liberati
John W Williams
Robin Harbour
Bob Phillips
David C. Atkins
Martin Eccles
Signe Flottorp
Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer
Philippa Middleton
Dana Best
Peter A. Briss
Margaret Haugh
Gillian Leng
Nicola Magrini
Jacek Mrukowicz
Dianne O’Connell
Helena Varonen
Stephanie Zaza
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%