Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group
1 Center for Practice and Technology Assessment, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Rd. Rokville, MD 20852, USA
2 Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AA, UK
3 Informed Choice Research Department, Norwegian Health Services Research Centre, Pb. 7004 St. Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway
4 Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada
5 Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Level 5, New Med 2 Building, Newcastle Mater Hospital, Waratah, NSW 2298, Australia
6 Department of Oncology and Hematology, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Azienda Ospedaliera Policlinico, Via dal Pozzo 41, 41100 Modena, Italia and Centro per la Valutazione della Efficacia della Assistenza Sanitaria (CeVEAS), Modena, Italy
7 Cancer Epidemiology Research Unit, Cancer Research and Registers Division, The Cancer Council NSW, PO Box 572, Kings Cross NSW 1340, Australia
8 Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK
9 Departments of Medicine and Social & Preventive Medicine, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, ECMC-CC142, 462 Grinder St, Buffalo, NY 14215, USA
10 Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy, World Health Organisation, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
11 The Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, HSR&D, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Duke University Medical Center, 508 Fulton St., Durham, NC 27705, USA
Citation and License
BMC Health Services Research 2004, 4:38 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-4-38Published: 22 December 2004
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.
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.
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.
All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.