Table 7 |
|
|
Grading of Evidence Using the SIGN Grading System |
|
|
Assessment of individual studies |
Grade |
|
|
|
|
High quality meta analysis, systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT), or RCT with very low risk of bias |
1++ |
|
Well-conducted meta analysis, systematic review of RCTs, or RCT with a low risk of bias |
1+ |
|
Meta analysis, systematic review of RCTs, or RCT with a high risk of bias |
1- |
|
High quality systematic reviews of case-control or cohort studies High quality case-control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a high probability that the relationship is causal |
2++ |
|
Well conducted case control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal |
2+ |
|
Case control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal |
2- |
|
Non-analytic studies, e.g. case reports, case series |
3 |
|
Expert opinion |
4 |
|
|
|
|
Assessment of all evidence for each intervention |
Grade |
|
|
|
|
At least 1 meta analysis, systematic review, or RCT rated as 1++, directly applicable to the target population; or a systematic review of RCTs or a body of evidence consisting primarily of studies rated as 1+, directly applicable to the target population and demonstrating consistent overall results |
A |
|
Body of evidence including studies rated as 2++, directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating consistent overall results; or extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 1++ or 1+ |
B |
|
Body of evidence including studies rated as 2+, directly applicable to the target population and demonstrating consistent overall results; or extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2++ |
C |
|
Body of evidence 3 or 4; or extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2+ |
D |
|
|
|
|
Lawn et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2009 9(Suppl 1):S2 doi:10.1186/1471-2393-9-S1-S2 |
|