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

David Atkins, Martin P. Eccles, Signe Flottorp, Gordon H Guyatt, David Henry, Suzanne Hill, Alessandro Liberati, Dianne O'Connell, Andrew D. Oxman, Bob Phillips, Holger J. Schünemann, Tessa Tan Torres Edejer, Gunn E. Vist, John W. Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

485 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations.

METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches.

RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised.

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

Original languageEnglish
Article number38
Number of pages7
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Dec 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Administrative Personnel
Practice Guidelines

Cite this

Atkins, David ; Eccles, Martin P. ; Flottorp, Signe ; Guyatt, Gordon H ; Henry, David ; Hill, Suzanne ; Liberati, Alessandro ; O'Connell, Dianne ; Oxman, Andrew D. ; Phillips, Bob ; Schünemann, Holger J. ; Edejer, Tessa Tan Torres ; Vist, Gunn E. ; Williams, John W. / Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I : Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2004 ; Vol. 4, No. 1.
@article{fab88acf02a94035923891445b239474,
title = "Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations.METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches.RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised.CONCLUSIONS: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.",
author = "David Atkins and Eccles, {Martin P.} and Signe Flottorp and Guyatt, {Gordon H} and David Henry and Suzanne Hill and Alessandro Liberati and Dianne O'Connell and Oxman, {Andrew D.} and Bob Phillips and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.} and Edejer, {Tessa Tan Torres} and Vist, {Gunn E.} and Williams, {John W.}",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6963-4-38",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Atkins, D, Eccles, MP, Flottorp, S, Guyatt, GH, Henry, D, Hill, S, Liberati, A, O'Connell, D, Oxman, AD, Phillips, B, Schünemann, HJ, Edejer, TTT, Vist, GE & Williams, JW 2004, '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, vol. 4, no. 1, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-38

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I : Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. / Atkins, David; Eccles, Martin P.; Flottorp, Signe; Guyatt, Gordon H; Henry, David; Hill, Suzanne; Liberati, Alessandro; O'Connell, Dianne; Oxman, Andrew D.; Phillips, Bob; Schünemann, Holger J.; Edejer, Tessa Tan Torres; Vist, Gunn E.; Williams, John W.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, 38, 22.12.2004.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I

T2 - Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

AU - Atkins, David

AU - Eccles, Martin P.

AU - Flottorp, Signe

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H

AU - Henry, David

AU - Hill, Suzanne

AU - Liberati, Alessandro

AU - O'Connell, Dianne

AU - Oxman, Andrew D.

AU - Phillips, Bob

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Edejer, Tessa Tan Torres

AU - Vist, Gunn E.

AU - Williams, John W.

PY - 2004/12/22

Y1 - 2004/12/22

N2 - BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations.METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches.RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised.CONCLUSIONS: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.

AB - BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations.METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches.RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised.CONCLUSIONS: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650094478&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38

DO - 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38

M3 - Article

VL - 4

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 38

ER -