article Open AccessTop 1% cited

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

BMC Health Services Research · 2004 · Vol. 4(1) · pp. 38–38

David C. Atkins✉(Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)Martin Eccles(Newcastle University)Signe Flottorp(Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten)Gordon Guyatt(McMaster University)David Henry(Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital)Suzanne Hill(Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital)Alessandro Liberati(Policlinico di Modena)Dianne L. O’Connell(Cancer Council NSW)Andrew D Oxman(Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten)Bob Phillips(Warneford Hospital)Holger J. Schünemann(University at Buffalo, State University of New York)Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer(World Health Organization)Gunn Elisabeth Vist(Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten)John W Williams(Duke Medical Center)The GRADE Working Group

View via DOI Full-text PDF

Abstract

All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.

Clinical practice guidelines implementation Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsGrading (engineering)Critical appraisalMedicineHarmHealth informaticsEvidence-based medicinePsychologyNursingPublic healthSocial psychology

MeSH terms

Decision Making, OrganizationalHealth Services ResearchHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesSensitivity and SpecificitySystems AnalysisUnited StatesReproducibility of ResultsUnited States Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityPractice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineAdvisory Committees

Citations

1,210

FWCI

17.91

field-weighted impact

References

Percentile

99%

vs. same field & year

Citations per year

Cited by

Multiplex PCR for rapid detection of genes encoding CTX-M extended-spectrum β-lactamases