Abstract
Clinical care is increasingly informed by clinical practice guidelines. Well-formulated guidelines are transparent and actionable, and provide guidance through quality-rated evidence resulting into graded recommendations. In this chapter, we discuss a methodologically rigorous, yet simple rating system. Prior rating systems consisted of rigid, study type driven hierarchies. In contrast, the GRADE framework is outcomes-centric and explicit in its evidence rating criteria. GRADE also emphasizes that final guideline recommendations should not solely rely on the quality of evidence, but also on the balance between benefits and downsides, and consider patient values and preferences and resource use.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Sackett D, Strauss S, Richardson W, et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
Mendelson D, Carino TV. Evidence-based medicine in the United States--de rigueur or dream deferred? Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(1):133–6.
Sultan S, Falck-Ytter Y, Inadomi JM. The AGA institute process for developing clinical practice guidelines part one: grading the evidence. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(4):329–32.
Organizations that have endorsed or that are using GRADE: GRADE Working Group; 2013 [cited 2013 October 30]. Available from: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/society/.
Falck-Ytter Y, Kunz R, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. How strong is the evidence? Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(6):1334–8.
Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):614–8.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–15.
Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7211):670–4.
Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P, Zhou Q, et al. Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(12):1180–7.
Guyatt GH, Briel M, Glasziou P, Bassler D, Montori VM. Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ. 2012;344:e3863.
Deng B, Tan QY, Zhao YP, Wang RW, Jiang YG. Suction or non-suction to the underwater seal drains following pulmonary operation: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38(2):210–5.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1294–302.
Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM, Karanicolas PJ, Arcelus JI, Heit JA, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e227S–77S.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):158–72.
Guyatt GH, Norris SL, Schulman S, Hirsh J, Eckman MH, Akl EA, et al. Methodology for the development of antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):53S–70S.
Broeders JA, Roks DJ, Ahmed Ali U, Watson DI, Baigrie RJ, Cao Z, et al. Laparoscopic anterior 180-degree versus nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):850–9.
Lee JS, Urschel DM, Urschel JD. Is general thoracic surgical practice evidence based? Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70(2):429–31.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell J. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing The Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses. Ottawa Health Research Institute web site. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 2 June 2020.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049–51.
Falck-Ytter Y, Guyatt GH. Guidelines: rating the quality of evidence and grading the strength of recommendations. In: Burneo JG, Demaerschalk BM, Jenkins ME, editors. Neurology: an evidence-based approach. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 25–41.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.
Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, Vale L, Oxman AD, Lord J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):140–50.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Jaeschke R, Helfand M, Liberati A, et al. Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7654):1170–3.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.
Feuerstein JD, Gifford AE, Akbari M, Goldman J, Leffler DA, Sheth SG, et al. Systematic analysis underlying the quality of the scientific evidence and conflicts of interest in gastroenterology practice guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(11):1686–93.
Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Brozek J, Akl EA, Walter SD, Norman G, et al. The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):736–42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chandar, A.K., Falck-Ytter, Y. (2020). Evidence Based Medicine: Quality of Evidence and Evaluation Systems. In: Ferguson, M. (eds) Difficult Decisions in Thoracic Surgery. Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47404-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47404-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47403-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47404-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)