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
. 2004 Dec 22;4(1):38.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

David Atkins  1 , Martin Eccles, Signe Flottorp, Gordon H Guyatt, David Henry, Suzanne Hill, Alessandro Liberati, Dianne O'Connell, Andrew D Oxman, Bob Phillips, Holger Schünemann, Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer, Gunn E Vist, John W Williams Jr; GRADE Working Group
Affiliations

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

David Atkins et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations.

Methods: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches.

Results: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised.

Conclusions: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J. 1979;121:1193–254. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1986;89:2S–3S. - PubMed
    1. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Archives Int Med. 1986;146:464–465.
    1. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1989;95:2S–4S. - PubMed
    1. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Antithrombotic Therapy Consensus Conference. Chest. 1992;102:305S–311S. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources