Authors
Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Elie A Akl, Regina Kunz, Gunn Vist, Jan Brozek, Susan Norris, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Paul Glasziou, Hans DeBeer, Roman Jaeschke, David Rind, Joerg Meerpohl, Philipp Dahm, Holger J Schünemann
Publication date
2011/4/1
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
383-394
Publisher
Pergamon
Description
This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of …
Total citations
2011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202441109199302404465513560682925109912231236696
Scholar articles
G Guyatt, AD Oxman, EA Akl, R Kunz, G Vist, J Brozek… - Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2011