GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables

      Abstract

      This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect.
      Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating.
      Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE’s approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Field M.
        • Lohr K.
        Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program.
        National Academic Press, Washington, DC1990
        • Schunemann H.J.
        • Woodhead M.
        • Anzueto A.
        • Buist S.
        • Macnee W.
        • Rabe K.F.
        • et al.
        A vision statement on guideline development for respiratory disease: the example of COPD.
        Lancet. 2009; 373: 774-779
        • Guyatt G.
        • Vist G.
        • Falck-Ytter Y.
        • Kunz R.
        • Magrini N.
        • Schunemann H.
        An emerging consensus on grading recommendations?.
        ACP J Club. 2006; 144: A8-A9
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Jaeschke R.
        • Helfand M.
        • Liberati A.
        • et al.
        Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 1170-1173
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Vist G.E.
        • Kunz R.
        • Falck-Ytter Y.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • et al.
        GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Vist G.E.
        • Falck-Ytter Y.
        • Schunemann H.J.
        What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 995-998
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Kunz R.
        • Falck-Ytter Y.
        • Vist G.E.
        • Liberati A.
        • et al.
        Going from evidence to recommendations.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 1049-1051
        • Schunemann H.J.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Brozek J.
        • Glasziou P.
        • Jaeschke R.
        • Vist G.E.
        • et al.
        Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 1106-1110
        • Jaeschke R.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Dellinger P.
        • Schunemann H.
        • Levy M.M.
        • Kunz R.
        • et al.
        Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive.
        BMJ. 2008; 337: a744
        • Brozek J.
        • Oxman A.
        • Schünemann H.J.
        GRADEpro. [Computer program]. Version 3.2 for Windows.
        (Available at)
        http://www.cc-ims.net/revman/gradepro
        Date: Accessed October 21, 2010
      1. Schünemann H, Brozek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation; 2010.

        • Oxman A.D.
        • Sackett D.L.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        Users’ guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.
        JAMA. 1993; 270: 2093-2095
        • Akl E.A.
        • Maroun N.
        • Guyatt G.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • Vist G.E.
        • et al.
        Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 1298-1305
        • GRADE Working Group
        Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: Pilot study of a new system.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2005; 5: 25
        • Rosenbaum S.E.
        • Glenton C.
        • Nylund H.K.
        • Oxman A.D.
        User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 607-619
        • Rosenbaum S.
        • Glenton C.
        • Oxman A.
        Evaluation of summary of findings tables for Cochrane reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 620-626
        • Schunemann H.
        • Fretheim A.
        • Oxman A.D.
        Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines.
        Health Res Policy Syst. 2006; 4: 13
      2. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0. [www.cochrane-handbook.org].

        • Schünemann H.
        • Fretheim A.
        • Oxman A.D.
        Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations.
        Health Res Policy Syst. 2006; 4: 21