HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Guyatt, G. Articles by Schunemann, H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Guyatt, G. Articles by Schunemann, H. Topic Collections EBM Notebook

An emerging consensus on grading recommendations?

¹ McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
² Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Oslo, Norway
³ Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
⁴ Institute for Clinical Epidemiology
Basel, Switzerland
⁵ Centre for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Health Care
Modena, Italy
⁶ McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena
Rome, Italy

Key Words: evidence-based medicine

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Clinical practice guidelines have improved in quality over the past 10 years by adhering to a few basic principles, such as conducting thorough systematic reviews of relevant evidence and grading the recommendations and the quality of the underlying evidence. The large number of systems of measuring the quality of evidence and recommendations that have emerged are, however, confusing.¹

The mission of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group is to help resolve the confusion among the different systems of rating evidence and recommendations. The group has wide representation from many organisations including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the US, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for England and Wales, and the World Health Organization. Developing a new uniform rating system is challenging because all systems have limitations and because many organisations have invested a great deal of time and effort to develop their . . . [Full text of this article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N.P. Johnson, T. Selman, J. Zamora, and K.S. Khan Gynaecologic surgery from uncertainty to science: evidence-based surgery is no passing fad Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2008; 23(4): 832 - 839. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. Robinson, R. P. Dellavalle, M. Bigby, and J. P. Callen Systematic Reviews: Grading Recommendations and Evidence Quality Arch Dermatol, January 1, 2008; 144(1): 97 - 99. [Full Text] [PDF]