Creating an account and signing in will allow you to keep your Decision box results and view them later.
The quality of the evidence used in the Decision Boxes is made explicit by the use of the GRADE approach. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is a systematic approach to rate the quality of evidence by applying a grade of High, Moderate, Low or Very Low. The quality of evidence is rated for each outcome across studies (Guyatt et al. 2011).
The following definitions of the quality of the evidence are provided by Guyatt et al. (2008) :
Rating is modified downward | Rating is modified upward |
---|---|
Study limitations | Large magnitude of effect |
Inconsistency of results | Counfounding factor likely minimizes the effect |
Indirectness of evidence | Dose response gradient |
Imprecision | |
Likelihood of publication bias |
The strength of the recommendations to use an intervention or a test varies depending of the quality of the evidence that is supporting this use. Thus, research evidence of high quality is more likely to lead to strong recommendations for or against an intervention, and allow drawing conclusions on the potential beneficial impact for the patient.
The GRADE approach is used in the Decision boxes so that clinicians and patients have an understanding of the strength of the evidence used to develop each Decision box. This information can help clinical decision-making, by allowing the clinician to better understand the critical elements at play when recommending an intervention or a test.
For some outcomes presented in the Decision boxes, confidence in results is graded LOW or MODERATE. This reflects a lack of high-quality evidence. Many clinical questions still need to be further investigated by researchers.
Guyatt et al. (2008). GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-6.
Guyatt G et al. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-94.