Article

Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines - Report from an American College of Chest Physicians task force

Department of Medicine, HSC-2C12, McMaster University, 1200 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5.
Chest (Impact Factor: 7.13). 02/2006; 129(1):174-81. DOI: 10.1378/chest.129.1.174
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While grading the strength of recommendations and the quality of underlying evidence enhances the usefulness of clinical guidelines, the profusion of guideline grading systems undermines the value of the grading exercise. An American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) task force formulated the criteria for a grading system to be utilized in all ACCP guidelines that included simplicity and transparency, explicitness of methodology, and consistency with current methodological approaches to the grading process. The working group examined currently available systems, and ultimately modified an approach formulated by the international GRADE group. The grading scheme classifies recommendations as strong (grade 1) or weak (grade 2), according to the balance among benefits, risks, burdens, and possibly cost, and the degree of confidence in estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens. The system classifies quality of evidence as high (grade A), moderate (grade B), or low (grade C) according to factors that include the study design, the consistency of the results, and the directness of the evidence. For all future ACCP guidelines, The College has adopted a simple, transparent approach to grading recommendations that is consistent with current developments in the field. The trend toward uniformity of approaches to grading will enhance the usefulness of practice guidelines for clinicians.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Doreen addrizzo-harris, Oct 11, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
217 Views
  • Source
    • "Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive tumour, which is linked to prior exposure to asbestos with a latency period of 20–30 years in approximately 80% of all cases (Weill et al, 2004; Hazarika et al, 2005; Goudar, 2008). Systemic therapy represents the primary treatment option for most patients (Treasure and Sedrakyan, 2004; Tsao et al, 2009), but standard MPM therapy is still deficient and decisions for radiotherapy, surgery or combined approaches are based on a case-by-case decision leading to a palliative treatment approach for most patients (Guyatt et al, 2006; Muers et al, 2008; Stahel et al, 2009; Astoul et al, 2012). Gender, histological subtype and haematological parameters have been identified as important prognostic parameters (Flores et al, 2007; Rusch et al, 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive tumour that is first-line treated with a combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed. Until now, predictive and prognostic biomarkers are lacking, making it a non-tailored therapy regimen with unknown outcome. P53 is frequently inactivated in MPM, but mutations are extremely rare. MDM2 and P14/ARF are upstream regulators of P53 that may contribute to P53 inactivation.Methods:A total of 72 MPM patients were investigated. MDM2 immunoexpression was assessed in 65 patients. MDM2 and P14/ARF mRNA expression was analysed in 48 patients of the overall collective. The expression results were correlated to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).Results:OS and PFS correlated highly significantly with MDM2 mRNA and protein expression, showing a dismal prognosis for patients with elevated MDM2 expression (for OS: Score (logrank) test: P⩽0.002, and for PFS: Score (logrank) test; P<0.007). MDM2 was identified as robust prognostic and predictive biomarker for MPM on the mRNA and protein level. P14/ARF mRNA expression reached no statistical significance, but Kaplan-Meier curves distinguished patients with low P14/ARF expression and hence shorter survival from patients with higher expression and prolonged survival.Conclusions:MDM2 is a prognostic and predictive marker for a platin-pemetrexed therapy of patients with MPMs. Downregulation of P14/ARF expression seems to contribute to MDM2-overexpression-mediated P53 inactivation in MPM patients.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 10 February 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.27 www.bjcancer.com.
    British Journal of Cancer 02/2015; 112(5). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.27 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Supplementary Table 1 lists all members of the ABC2 consensus panel and their disclosure of any relationships that could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. Table 1 describes the grading system used [15]. Three main issues were discussed at ABC2: inoperable locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) both inflammatory and noninflammatory ; MBC; and specific definitions for which a consensus was deemed important. "
    The Breast 09/2014; 23(5):489-502. DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2014.08.009. · 2.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In no population is this need more evident and likely to be valuable than in young women with breast cancer given their well-documented additional burdens and concerns [19]. Further, there is evidence that there are Table 1 Levels of evidence grading system [16]. Grade of recommendation/ description Benefit vs. risk and burdens Methodological quality of supporting evidence Implications 1A/strong recommendation, high quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation 1B/strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect, or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation 1C/strong recommendation, low quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa Observational studies or case series Strong recommendation, but may change when higher quality evidence becomes available 2A/weak recommendation, high quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients' or societal values 2B/weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect, or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients' or societal values 2C/weak recommendation, low quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden Observational studies or case series Very weak recommendation, other alternatives may be equally reasonable A.H. Partridge et al. / The Breast 23 (2014) 209e220 210 gaps in the care of young women after a diagnosis of breast cancer, particularly with regard to their unique needs including fertility, psychosocial and sexual health, as well as genetic issues [10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 1st International Consensus Conference for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY1) took place in November 2012, in Dublin, Ireland organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO). Consensus recommendations for management of breast cancer in young women were developed and areas of research priorities were identified. This manuscript summarizes these international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA).