TY - JOUR
T1 - GRADE guidelines
T2 - 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Oxman, Andrew D.
AU - Akl, Elie A.
AU - Kunz, Regina
AU - Vist, Gunn
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Norris, Susan
AU - Falck-Ytter, Yngve
AU - Glasziou, Paul
AU - Debeer, Hans
AU - Jaeschke, Roman
AU - Rind, David
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg
AU - Dahm, Philipp
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
PY - 2011/4
Y1 - 2011/4
N2 - This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations.
AB - This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations.
KW - GRADE
KW - clinical practice guidelines
KW - health technology assessment
KW - quality of evidence
KW - strength of recommendations
KW - systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951952372&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951952372&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
M3 - Article
C2 - 21195583
AN - SCOPUS:79951952372
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 64
SP - 383
EP - 394
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - 4
ER -