[Integrative assessment of evidence in healthcare: the GRADE system]
- PMID: 19645339
- DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.05.007
[Integrative assessment of evidence in healthcare: the GRADE system]
Abstract
Decisions are a double-edged sword: they always and inevitably come with positive and negative consequences. Decisions in healthcare--from a systems level to the individual patient--are not different. This approach acknowledges that for all recommendations and decisions all the important consequences need to be considered. Along these lines, one must evaluate the certainty that estimates of effects and decisions are likely to be correct. Thus, as institutions, professional societies, organisations and individuals, we should follow approaches focusing on systematic and integrative assessment of available best evidence. Longstanding and broad experience with the development of recommendations, including systematically developed guidelines, led a group of methodologists, health officers, clinicians and guideline developers to form the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. The GRADE approach differentiates the assessment of the quality of evidence from the strength of a recommendation in healthcare. For a step-by-step evaluation of the quality of evidence, one must consider all patient relevant endpoints. It is common that many relevant and acceptable studies provide evidence for single outcomes. Therefore, integrating summaries and assessments beyond meta-analyses are required. The explicit and transparent description of the single steps in these assessments and the consideration of all currently known criteria for the assessment of the quality of evidence are among the most important advantages and innovations of the GRADE system and are described here briefly. The overall quality of evidence of all outcomes that are critical for decision-making are summarized on the basis of the lowest quality of evidence. If, for example, the evidence for six of seven critical outcomes is of low quality while moderate quality evidence is available for the other critical outcome, the overall quality of evidence is considered low to avoid a false sense of certainty with the assessment of the evidence for a given topic. A recommendation according to GRADE also requires a considerate judgement about the magnitude of the expected balance of benefits and downsides for the important outcomes, the relative values and preferences associated with these outcomes and considerations about the required resources. The international collaboration and acceptance by many organisations is an indicator of GRADE's innovative nature and advances in the assessment of evidence and development of recommendations in the context of healthcare.
Similar articles
-
[GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice].Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103(6):391-400. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.05.023. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009. PMID: 19839216 German.
-
Interpreting GRADE's levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision?J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:6-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.018. Epub 2016 Apr 6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. PMID: 27063205
-
[The GRADE System. An international approach to standardize the graduation of evidence and recommendations in guidelines].Internist (Berl). 2008 Jun;49(6):673-80. doi: 10.1007/s00108-008-2141-9. Internist (Berl). 2008. PMID: 18461295 German.
-
Synthesis, grading, and presentation of evidence in guidelines: article 7 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):256-61. doi: 10.1513/pats.201208-060ST. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012. PMID: 23256168 Review.
-
Moving from evidence to developing recommendations in guidelines: article 11 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):282-92. doi: 10.1513/pats.201208-064ST. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012. PMID: 23256172 Review.
Cited by
-
Does the pharmaceutical industry influence guidelines?: two examples from Germany.Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013 Sep;110(35-36):575-83. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0575. Epub 2013 Sep 2. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013. PMID: 24078837 Free PMC article.
-
Mechanical Ventilation and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygena tion in Acute Respiratory Insufficiency.Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Dec 14;115(50):840-847. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0840. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018. PMID: 30722839 Free PMC article.
-
The Pharmacological Therapy of Chronic Neuropathic Pain.Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Sep 16;113(37):616-625. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0616. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016. PMID: 27697147 Free PMC article. Review.
-
[Pharmacotherapy of chronic neuropathic pain].Internist (Berl). 2019 Jul;60(7):711-723. doi: 10.1007/s00108-019-0627-2. Internist (Berl). 2019. PMID: 31187164 German.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical