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
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jul 10:8:78.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-78.

Guidelines for guideline developers: a systematic review of grading systems for medical tests

Gowri Gopalakrishna  1 , Miranda W Langendam, Rob J P M Scholten, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Mariska M G Leeflang
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Guidelines for guideline developers: a systematic review of grading systems for medical tests

Gowri Gopalakrishna et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: A variety of systems have been developed to grade evidence and develop recommendations based on the available evidence. However, development of guidelines for medical tests is especially challenging given the typical indirectness of the evidence; direct evidence of the effects of testing on patient important outcomes is usually absent. We compared grading systems for medical tests on how they use evidence in guideline development.

Methods: We used a systematic strategy to look for grading systems specific to medical tests in PubMed, professional guideline websites, via personal correspondence, and handsearching back references of key articles. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument as a starting point, we defined two sets of characteristics to describe these systems: methodological and process ones. Methodological characteristics are features relating to how evidence is gathered, appraised, and used in recommendations. Process characteristics are those relating to the guideline development process. Data were extracted in duplicate and differences resolved through discussion.

Results: Twelve grading systems could be included. All varied in the degree to which methodological and process characteristics were addressed. Having a clinical scenario, identifying the care pathway and/or developing an analytical framework, having explicit criteria for appraising and linking indirect evidence, and having explicit methodologies for translating evidence into recommendations were least frequently addressed. Five systems at most addressed these, to varying degrees of explicitness and completeness. Process wise, features most frequently addressed included involvement of relevant professional groups (8/12), external peer review of completed guidelines (9/12), and recommendations on methods for dissemination (8/12). Characteristics least often addressed were whether the system was piloted (3/12) and funder information (3/12).

Conclusions: Five systems for grading evidence about medical tests in guideline development addressed to differing degrees of explicitness the need for and appraisal of different bodies of evidence, the linking of such evidence, and its translation into recommendations. At present, no one system addressed the full complexity of gathering, assessing and linking different bodies of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Main steps in guideline development.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of search strategy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Methodological characteristics.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Process characteristics.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Overview: (a) methodological characteristics (b) process characteristics.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O’Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr. The GRADE Working Group. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:38. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, Lux L. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). In AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD; 2002.
    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;13(312(7023)):71–72. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations. 2006;5:4–21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Linnet K, Moons KG. Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem. 2012;58(12):1636–1643. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.182576. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources