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!
|
| container_end_page | e1000151 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | e1000151 |
| container_title | PLoS medicine |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Ansari, Mohammed T Tsertsvadze, Alexander Moher, David |
| description |
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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000151 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1288088581</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_75457b3de17f43499795b300f25e64ac</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>733906308</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-6213596ca47d71def497ef51cf5cb5cd91b762666780d8befc1085d6ad6bb99d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkU1v1DAQhi0EoqXwDxDkxmkXO46_OCBVFZSiSlzgbDn2eOtVYqe2s1L_PVk2QHuyNfPOMx8vQm8J3hIqyMd9mnM0w3YawW0Jxpgw8gydE9apDeGCP3_0P0OvStlj3Cqs8Et0RpRglGB5jr5fZ-NC3DX3sxlCfWiSb-AQHEQLjYmuKTVD3NW7YyKDTeMI0ZkaUiyfGtNMkMsEtoYDvEYvvBkKvFnfC_Tr65efV982tz-ub64ubze2U6JueEsoU9yaTjhBHPglCp4R65ntmXWK9IK3nHMhsZM9eLsMyhw3jve9Uo5eoPcn7jSkotczFE1aKbGUTJJFcXNSuGT2esphNPlBJxP0n0DKO21yDXYALVjHRE8dEOE72iklFOspxr5lwDtjF9bntdvcL5e2EGs2wxPo00wMd3qXDroVlAlJF8CHFZDT_Qyl6jEUC8NgIqS5aEGpwpxiuSi7k9LmVEoG_68Lwfro-d9l9dFzvXq-lL17POH_otVk-hsdqKts</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733906308</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Ansari, Mohammed T ; Tsertsvadze, Alexander ; Moher, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Ansari, Mohammed T ; Tsertsvadze, Alexander ; Moher, David</creatorcontrib><description>
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1549-1676</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1549-1277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1549-1676</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000151</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19753108</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Angina pectoris ; Budgets ; Clinical medicine ; Developing countries ; Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making ; Evidence-based medicine ; Evidence-Based Medicine - standards ; Heart attacks ; Humans ; Intervention ; LDCs ; Opportunity costs ; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards ; Studies</subject><ispartof>PLoS medicine, 2009-09, Vol.6 (9), p.e1000151-e1000151</ispartof><rights>Ansari et al. 2009</rights><rights>2009 Ansari et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited: Ansari MT, Tsertsvadze A, Moher D (2009) Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations: A Perspective. PLoS Med 6(9): e1000151. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000151</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-6213596ca47d71def497ef51cf5cb5cd91b762666780d8befc1085d6ad6bb99d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-6213596ca47d71def497ef51cf5cb5cd91b762666780d8befc1085d6ad6bb99d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735783/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735783/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19753108$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ansari, Mohammed T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsertsvadze, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><title>Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective</title><title>PLoS medicine</title><addtitle>PLoS Med</addtitle><description>
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.</description><subject>Angina pectoris</subject><subject>Budgets</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Developing countries</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - standards</subject><subject>Heart attacks</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>LDCs</subject><subject>Opportunity costs</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1549-1676</issn><issn>1549-1277</issn><issn>1549-1676</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkU1v1DAQhi0EoqXwDxDkxmkXO46_OCBVFZSiSlzgbDn2eOtVYqe2s1L_PVk2QHuyNfPOMx8vQm8J3hIqyMd9mnM0w3YawW0Jxpgw8gydE9apDeGCP3_0P0OvStlj3Cqs8Et0RpRglGB5jr5fZ-NC3DX3sxlCfWiSb-AQHEQLjYmuKTVD3NW7YyKDTeMI0ZkaUiyfGtNMkMsEtoYDvEYvvBkKvFnfC_Tr65efV982tz-ub64ubze2U6JueEsoU9yaTjhBHPglCp4R65ntmXWK9IK3nHMhsZM9eLsMyhw3jve9Uo5eoPcn7jSkotczFE1aKbGUTJJFcXNSuGT2esphNPlBJxP0n0DKO21yDXYALVjHRE8dEOE72iklFOspxr5lwDtjF9bntdvcL5e2EGs2wxPo00wMd3qXDroVlAlJF8CHFZDT_Qyl6jEUC8NgIqS5aEGpwpxiuSi7k9LmVEoG_68Lwfro-d9l9dFzvXq-lL17POH_otVk-hsdqKts</recordid><startdate>20090901</startdate><enddate>20090901</enddate><creator>Ansari, Mohammed T</creator><creator>Tsertsvadze, Alexander</creator><creator>Moher, David</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><scope>CZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090901</creationdate><title>Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective</title><author>Ansari, Mohammed T ; Tsertsvadze, Alexander ; Moher, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c497t-6213596ca47d71def497ef51cf5cb5cd91b762666780d8befc1085d6ad6bb99d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Angina pectoris</topic><topic>Budgets</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Developing countries</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - standards</topic><topic>Heart attacks</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>LDCs</topic><topic>Opportunity costs</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ansari, Mohammed T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsertsvadze, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><collection>PLoS Medicine</collection><jtitle>PLoS medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ansari, Mohammed T</au><au>Tsertsvadze, Alexander</au><au>Moher, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective</atitle><jtitle>PLoS medicine</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS Med</addtitle><date>2009-09-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e1000151</spage><epage>e1000151</epage><pages>e1000151-e1000151</pages><issn>1549-1676</issn><issn>1549-1277</issn><eissn>1549-1676</eissn><abstract>
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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>19753108</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pmed.1000151</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1549-1676 |
| ispartof | PLoS medicine, 2009-09, Vol.6 (9), p.e1000151-e1000151 |
| issn | 1549-1676 1549-1277 1549-1676 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1288088581 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Angina pectoris Budgets Clinical medicine Developing countries Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making Evidence-based medicine Evidence-Based Medicine - standards Heart attacks Humans Intervention LDCs Opportunity costs Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards Studies |
| title | Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T23%3A29%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Grading%20quality%20of%20evidence%20and%20strength%20of%20recommendations:%20a%20perspective&rft.jtitle=PLoS%20medicine&rft.au=Ansari,%20Mohammed%20T&rft.date=2009-09-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e1000151&rft.epage=e1000151&rft.pages=e1000151-e1000151&rft.issn=1549-1676&rft.eissn=1549-1676&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000151&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E733906308%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733906308&rft_id=info:pmid/19753108&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_75457b3de17f43499795b300f25e64ac&rfr_iscdi=true |