Rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using GRADE
- 1.1k Downloads
Urologists can benefit from a standardized system for guideline development and presentation. This article introduces the GRADE system and explains how it may be useful for Urologic physicians, in their practice and in their healthcare systems.
The GRADE system is reviewed. Specific aspects of how GRADE rates the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations are explored.
GRADE can provide explicit and structured guidance, which separates the quality of evidence from the strength of recommendations. This information can be used by consumers of guidelines, including patients, physicians, and policy makers.
Urologists can benefit from a more transparent and rigorous framework when formulating recommendations. GRADE is an emergent proposal with broader implications for healthcare policy as well.
KeywordsGuidelines Levels of evidence Urology
This article relies heavily on the landmark series published in the British Medical Journal by the GRADE working group.
Conflict of interest
Dr. Dahm is a member of the GRADE working group.
- 1.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2008) SIGN 50: a guideline developer’s handbook. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Guideline no. 50Google Scholar
- 2.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2004) Management of urinary incontinence in primary care. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Guideline no. 79Google Scholar
- 3.Winn RJ, McClure JS (2003) The NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines™) NCCN Senior Vice President, Clinical Information & PublicationsGoogle Scholar
- 4.NCCN Guidelines Prostate Cancer (2010) National comprehensive cancer network, Version 1.2011Google Scholar
- 6.Thuroff JW, Abrams P, Andersson KE et al (2011) EAU guidelines on urinary incontinence. European urol 59(3):387–400Google Scholar
- 18.Meek PD, Evang SD, Tadrous M et al (2011) Overactive bladder drugs and constipation: a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Dig Dis Sci 56(1):7–18Google Scholar
- 21.Hunter KF, Glazener CM, Moore KN (2007) Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD001843Google Scholar