Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 513-523, May 2010

AHRQ Series Paper 5: Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program

  • Douglas K. Owens

      Affiliations

    • VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA, 94304 USA
    • Stanford-UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
    • Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, 117 Encina Commons, Stanford, CA 94305-6019, USA. Tel.: 650-723-0933; fax: 650-724-5182.
  • ,
  • Kathleen N. Lohr

      Affiliations

    • RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194 USA
  • ,
  • David Atkins

      Affiliations

    • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, Health Services Research & Development Service (HSR&D), Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, 20420 USA
  • ,
  • Jonathan R. Treadwell

      Affiliations

    • ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center, Plymouth Meeting, PA, 19462 USA
  • ,
  • James T. Reston

      Affiliations

    • ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center, Plymouth Meeting, PA, 19462 USA
  • ,
  • Eric B. Bass

      Affiliations

    • Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, Baltimore, MD, 21287 USA
  • ,
  • Stephanie Chang

      Affiliations

    • Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 20850 USA
  • ,
  • Mark Helfand

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Health & Sciences University Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Staff Physician, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, OR, 97207 USA

Accepted 11 March 2009. published online 13 July 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

To establish guidance on grading strength of evidence for the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Study Design and Setting

Authors reviewed authoritative systems for grading strength of evidence, identified domains and methods that should be considered when grading bodies of evidence in systematic reviews, considered public comments on an earlier draft, and discussed the approach with representatives of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.

Results

The EPC approach is conceptually similar to the GRADE system of evidence rating; it requires assessment of four domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Additional domains to be used when appropriate include dose–response association, presence of confounders that would diminish an observed effect, strength of association, and publication bias. Strength of evidence receives a single grade: high, moderate, low, or insufficient. We give definitions, examples, mechanisms for scoring domains, and an approach for assigning strength of evidence.

Conclusion

EPCs should grade strength of evidence separately for each major outcome and, for comparative effectiveness reviews, all major comparisons. We will collaborate with the GRADE group to address ongoing challenges in assessing the strength of evidence.

Keywords: Comparative effectiveness, Evidence-based medicine, Methods, Strength of evidence, Systematic reviews

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0895-4356(09)00093-6

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.009

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 513-523, May 2010