分级(工程)
证据质量
风险分析(工程)
确定性
质量(理念)
指南
心理干预
计算机科学
过程管理
心理学
荟萃分析
医学
业务
工程类
哲学
病理
土木工程
内科学
精神科
认识论
作者
David C. Atkins,Dana Best,Peter A. Briss,Martin Eccles,Yngve Falck–Ytter,Signe Flottorp,Gordon Guyatt,Robin Harbour,Margaret Haugh,David Henry,Suzanne Hill,Roman Jaeschke,Gillian Leng,Alessandro Liberati,Nicola Magrini,James Mason,Philippa Middleton,Jacek Mrukowicz,Dianne O’Connell,Andrew D Oxman
出处
期刊:BMJ
[BMJ]
日期:2004-06-17
卷期号:328 (7454): 1490-1490
被引量:8422
标识
DOI:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
摘要
Abstract Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues. Clinical guidelines are only as good as the evidence and judgments they are based on. The GRADE approach aims to make it easier for users to assess the judgments behind recommendations
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI