Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective
Systematic reviews are considered the best available evidence and are often used in the development of CPGs [1],[2]. Since guideline development involves an assessment of the overall quality of evidence and complex balancing of trade-offs between the important benefits and harms of any given inter...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PLoS medicine 2009-09, Vol.6 (9), p.e1000151-e1000151 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: |
Systematic reviews are considered the best available evidence and are often used in the development of CPGs [1],[2]. Since guideline development involves an assessment of the overall quality of evidence and complex balancing of trade-offs between the important benefits and harms of any given intervention, arbitrariness, value judgements, and subjectivity ultimately come into play in the guideline development process and associated recommendations [3]. In a new Policy Forum published in this issue of PLoS Medicine, Kavanagh [9] questions the external consistency of the GRADE framework by comparing the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline recommendations developed in 2004 and updated in 2008. [...]Kavanagh expresses his concerns on the processes of the GRADE development and its formal validation. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1549-1676 1549-1277 1549-1676 |
DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000151 |