GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, Elie A. Akl, Regina Kunz, Gunn Vist, Jan Brozek, Susan Norris, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Paul Glasziou, Hans Debeer, Roman Jaeschke, David Rind, Joerg Meerpohl, Philipp Dahm, Holger J. Schünemann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2350 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)383-394
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2011

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Practice Guidelines

Cite this

Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., ... Schünemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 383-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
Guyatt, Gordon ; Oxman, Andrew D. ; Akl, Elie A. ; Kunz, Regina ; Vist, Gunn ; Brozek, Jan ; Norris, Susan ; Falck-Ytter, Yngve ; Glasziou, Paul ; Debeer, Hans ; Jaeschke, Roman ; Rind, David ; Meerpohl, Joerg ; Dahm, Philipp ; Schünemann, Holger J. / GRADE guidelines : 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011 ; Vol. 64, No. 4. pp. 383-394.
@article{1d365ddf044447c8b0a85e63eb750226,
title = "GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Gordon Guyatt and Oxman, {Andrew D.} and Akl, {Elie A.} and Regina Kunz and Gunn Vist and Jan Brozek and Susan Norris and Yngve Falck-Ytter and Paul Glasziou and Hans Debeer and Roman Jaeschke and David Rind and Joerg Meerpohl and Philipp Dahm and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "383--394",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

Guyatt, G, Oxman, AD, Akl, EA, Kunz, R, Vist, G, Brozek, J, Norris, S, Falck-Ytter, Y, Glasziou, P, Debeer, H, Jaeschke, R, Rind, D, Meerpohl, J, Dahm, P & Schünemann, HJ 2011, 'GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 383-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026

GRADE guidelines : 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. / Guyatt, Gordon; Oxman, Andrew D.; Akl, Elie A.; Kunz, Regina; Vist, Gunn; Brozek, Jan; Norris, Susan; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Glasziou, Paul; Debeer, Hans; Jaeschke, Roman; Rind, David; Meerpohl, Joerg; Dahm, Philipp; Schünemann, Holger J.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 64, No. 4, 04.2011, p. 383-394.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951952372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 383

EP - 394

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 4

ER -