Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

Philipp Dahm; Holger J. Schünemann

doi:10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

Philipp Dahm, Holger J. Schünemann

Urology

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

Original language	English (US)
Title of host publication	Evidence-Based Urology
Publisher	Wiley-Blackwell
Pages	29-37
Number of pages	9
ISBN (Print)	9781405185943
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444323146.ch4
State	Published - Jul 9 2010

Keywords

Clinical decision making-in setting of weak recommendations, a challenge
Determinants of strength of recommendation and implications of strong and weak recommendations
GRADE system, evaluating quality of evidence-and presenting recommendations
Grading recommendations
Interpreting strong and weak recommendations
Publication bias-quality of evidence, reduced when investigators fail to report outcomes
Question formulation and recommendations
Rating quality of evidence and making recommendations
Urologists, requiring clinical expertise-integrating a patient's circumstances and values with best available evidence
key features of "quality of evidence"

Publisher link

10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@inbook{e64496b8c39849969952c4f945cb9a56,

title = "Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations",

keywords = "Clinical decision making-in setting of weak recommendations, a challenge, Determinants of strength of recommendation and implications of strong and weak recommendations, GRADE system, evaluating quality of evidence-and presenting recommendations, Grading recommendations, Interpreting strong and weak recommendations, Publication bias-quality of evidence, reduced when investigators fail to report outcomes, Question formulation and recommendations, Rating quality of evidence and making recommendations, Urologists, requiring clinical expertise-integrating a patient's circumstances and values with best available evidence, key features of {"}quality of evidence{"}",

author = "Philipp Dahm and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.}",

year = "2010",

month = jul,

day = "9",

doi = "10.1002/9781444323146.ch4",

language = "English (US)",

isbn = "9781405185943",

pages = "29--37",

booktitle = "Evidence-Based Urology",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

AU - Dahm, Philipp

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

PY - 2010/7/9

Y1 - 2010/7/9

KW - Clinical decision making-in setting of weak recommendations, a challenge

KW - Determinants of strength of recommendation and implications of strong and weak recommendations

KW - GRADE system, evaluating quality of evidence-and presenting recommendations

KW - Grading recommendations

KW - Interpreting strong and weak recommendations

KW - Publication bias-quality of evidence, reduced when investigators fail to report outcomes

KW - Question formulation and recommendations

KW - Rating quality of evidence and making recommendations

KW - Urologists, requiring clinical expertise-integrating a patient's circumstances and values with best available evidence

KW - key features of "quality of evidence"

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885546318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885546318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

DO - 10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84885546318

SN - 9781405185943

SP - 29

EP - 37

BT - Evidence-Based Urology

PB - Wiley-Blackwell

ER -

Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Cite this