Table 1

Summary of assessments of the sensibility of six approaches to rating levels of evidence and strength of recommendation
Criteria1
 ACCP
 ANHMRC2
 USTFCPS
 OCEBM
 SIGN
 USPSTF3

No
Yes
 No
Yes
 No
Yes
 No
Yes
 No
Yes
 No
Yes
1. Applicable to different questions:

















     Effectiveness

12
2
 8
1
 11

12
 1
11
2
 9
     Harm
1
 11
5
 5
 1
 7
 4
1
 11
 1
 3
 8
 2
 2
 7
     Diagnosis
 7
 3
 2
 4
 4
 2
 9
 3


12
 5
 2
 5
 2
 2
 7
     Prognosis
 6
 3
 3
 2
 5
 3
 9
 2
 1

11
 4
 3
 5
 3
 3
 5



















2. Can be used by:

















     Professionals
1
 11
 1
 5
 3
7
 4
 1
 6
 5
5
 7
3
 8
     Policy makers
 1
 5
 6
 1
 5
 3
 1
 2
 9
 3
 7
 2
 2
 6
 4
 1
 4
 6
     Patients
 4
 5
 3
 5
 5
6
 3
 3
 9
 3
7
 5
4
 6
 1



















3. Clear and simple
 1
 5
 6
 2
 6
 1
 2
 8
 2
 2
 4
 5
 1
 5
 6
 1
 4
 7
4. Information not available
8
 4
 1
 5
 3
 1
 6
 5
4
 8
 1
 7
 4
 1
 9
 2
5. Subjective decisions
 2
 10
5
 2
 2
 5
 5
 2
7
 5
 5
 7
2
 9
6. Inappropriate dimensions
 1
 3
 8
1
 6
 2
 4
 6
1
 10
 1
 2
 8
 1
 4
 6
7. Missing dimensions
 1
 6
 5
 2
 2
 4
 5
 4
 3
 9
 3
 1
 5
 4
 3
 2
 5
 4



















Aggregation of dimensions:

















     8. Clear and simple
 1
 5
 6
 4
 1
 2
 2
 2
 7
 3
 4
 4
6
 6
 2
 7
 2
     9. Appropriate
6
 5
 3
 1
 1
 3
 4
 4
 2
 5
 4
 1
 4
 6
 1
 5
 5



















10. Sufficient categories
 1
 4
 6
 4
 2
 1
5
 7
 2
 2
 7
 1
 2
 9
1
 10
11. Likely to discriminate
7
 5
 2
 5
 1
 1
 9
 2
 2
 4
 6
5
 7
4
 7
12. Assessments reproducible
 1
 8
 3
 4
 4
2
 7
 2
7
 4
 1
 8
 2
10

1See Criteria described in Methods.

2Two people did not assess the ANHMRC because it was more descriptive and others responded not applicable for some questions.

3One person did not assess the USPST and one person had two responses on questions 3 and 4.

Atkins et al. BMC Health Services Research 2004 4:38   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-4-38