Article

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system.

Center for Practice and Technology Assessment, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Rd. Rokville, MD 20852, USA. <>
BMC Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 1.66). 04/2005; 5(1):25. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-25
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Systems that are used by different organisations to grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations vary. They have different strengths and weaknesses. The GRADE Working Group has developed an approach that addresses key shortcomings in these systems. The aim of this study was to pilot test and further develop the GRADE approach to grading evidence and recommendations.
A GRADE evidence profile consists of two tables: a quality assessment and a summary of findings. Twelve evidence profiles were used in this pilot study. Each evidence profile was made based on information available in a systematic review. Seventeen people were given instructions and independently graded the level of evidence and strength of recommendation for each of the 12 evidence profiles. For each example judgements were collected, summarised and discussed in the group with the aim of improving the proposed grading system. Kappas were calculated as a measure of chance-corrected agreement for the quality of evidence for each outcome for each of the twelve evidence profiles. The seventeen judges were also asked about the ease of understanding and the sensibility of the approach. All of the judgements were recorded and disagreements discussed.
There was a varied amount of agreement on the quality of evidence for the outcomes relating to each of the twelve questions (kappa coefficients for agreement beyond chance ranged from 0 to 0.82). However, there was fair agreement about the relative importance of each outcome. There was poor agreement about the balance of benefits and harms and recommendations. Most of the disagreements were easily resolved through discussion. In general we found the GRADE approach to be clear, understandable and sensible. Some modifications were made in the approach and it was agreed that more information was needed in the evidence profiles.
Judgements about evidence and recommendations are complex. Some subjectivity, especially regarding recommendations, is unavoidable. We believe our system for guiding these complex judgements appropriately balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
127 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessment of the quality of studies is a critical component of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews (SRs) that are used to inform policy decisions. To reduce the potential for reviewer bias, and to ensure that the findings of SRs are transparent and reproducible, organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, recommend the use of formal quality assessment tools as opposed to informal expert judgment. However, there is a bewildering array of around 300 formal quality assessment tools that have been identified in the literature, and it has been demonstrated that the use of different tools for the assessment of the same studies can result in different estimates of quality, which can potentially reverse the conclusions of a SR. It is therefore important to consider carefully, the choice of quality assessment tool. We argue that quality assessment tools should: (1) have proven construct validity (i.e. the assessment criteria have demonstrable link with what they purport to measure), (2) facilitate inter-reviewer agreement, (3) be applicable across study designs, and (4) be quick and easy to use. Our aim was to examine current best practice for quality assessment in healthcare and investigate the extent to which these best practices could be useful for assessing the quality of environmental science studies. The feasibility of this transfer is demonstrated in a number of existing SRs on environmental topics. We propose that environmental practitioners should revise, test and adopt the best practice quality assessment tools used in healthcare as a recommended approach for application to environmental science. We provide pilot versions of quality assessment tools, modified from the best practice tools used in healthcare, for application on studies from environmental science.
    Environmental Evidence. 09/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper is meant to provide guidance to anyone wishing to write a neurological guideline for diagnosis or treatment, and is directed at the Scientist Panels and task forces of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS). It substitutes the previous guidance paper from 2004. It contains several new aspects: the guidance is now based on a change of the grading system for evidence and for the resulting recommendations, and has adopted The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). The process of grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations can now be improved and made more transparent. The task forces embarking on the development of a guideline must now make clearer and more transparent choices about outcomes considered most relevant when searching the literature and evaluating their findings. Thus, the outcomes chosen will be more critical, more patient-oriented and easier to translate into simple recommendations. This paper also provides updated practical recommendations for planning a guideline task force within the framework of the EFNS. Finally, this paper hopes to find the approval also by the relevant bodies of our future organization, the European Academy of Neurology.
    European Journal of Neurology 03/2013; 20(3). · 3.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Systematic review with meta-analysis.
    Journal of spinal disorders & techniques. 05/2014; 27(3):117-135.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
39 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014