Scinovex
article Open AccessTop 1% cited

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

BMJ · 2004 · Vol. 328(7454) · pp. 1490–1490

Abstract

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.

Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsGrading (engineering)Quality of evidenceRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceCertaintyGuidelinePsychological interventionQuality (philosophy)Process managementPsychology

MeSH terms

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality Assurance, Health CarePractice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based Medicine
Citations
8,369
FWCI
115.73
field-weighted impact
References
48
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Related articles
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.