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

Open Data