Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Sep 30;169(7):677-80.

Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations

Affiliations

Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations

Holger J Schünemann et al. CMAJ. .

Erratum in

  • CMAJ. 2004 Mar 30;170(7):1082

Abstract

The GRADE Working Group is developing and evaluating a common, sensible approach to grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in health care. In this article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using letters, numbers, symbols or words to represent grades of evidence and recommendations. Using multiple strategies, we searched for comparative studies of alternative ways of representing ordered categories in any context. In addition, we contacted experts and reviewed theoretical work and qualitative research on how best to communicate grades of any kind quickly and clearly. We were unable to identify health care research that addressed, either directly or indirectly, the best way to present grades of evidence and recommendations. We found examples of symbols used by government, commercial and consumer organizations to communicate quality of evidence or strength of recommendations, but no comparative studies. Although a number of grading systems are used in health care and other fields, there is little or no evidence of how well various presentations are understood. Before promoting the use of specific symbols, numbers, letters or words, the extent to which the intended message is comprehended should be evaluated.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
Fig. 1: Examples of possible symbols for representing quality of evidence and the balance between benefits and harm in health care recommendations. See Tables 1 and 2 on the CMAJ Web site for selection criteria (see www.cmaj.ca).

Comment in

References

    1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. History and methods. Available: www.ctfphc.org (accessed 2003 Aug 27).
    1. National Guideline Clearinghouse. NGC Browse — Organizations. Available: www.guidelines.gov/browse/browse.aspx (accessed 2003 Jul 17).
    1. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Asinger RW, Cannom DS, Crijns HJ, Frye RL, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee to develop guidelines for the management of patients with arterial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:1266. - PubMed
    1. Albers G, Dalen JE, Laupacis A, Manning WJ, Petersen P, Singer DE. Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. Chest 2001;119:194S-206S. - PubMed
    1. Harris R. Information graphics: a comprehensive illustrated reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.