PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 17, 2011Allergy310 citationsOpen Access

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines Part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations

View Full Paper
JBJan BrożekEAElie A. AklECEnrico Compalati

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

To cite this article: Brożek JL, Akl EA, Compalati E, Kreis J, Terracciano L, Fiocchi A, Ueffing E, Andrews J, Alonso-Coello P, Meerpohl JJ, Lang DM, Jaeschke R, Williams JW Jr, Phillips B, Lethaby A, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Helfand M, Watine J, Afilalo M, Welch V, Montedori A, Abraha I, Horvath AR, Bousquet J, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, for the GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations. Allergy 2011; 66: 588–595. This is the third and last article in the series about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines and its application in the field of allergy. We describe the factors that influence the strength of recommendations about the use of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic interventions: the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, the quality of a body of evidence related to a decision, patients’ values and preferences, and considerations of resource use. We provide examples from two recently developed guidelines in the field of allergy that applied the GRADE approach. The main advantages of this approach are the focus on patient important outcomes, explicit consideration of patients’ values and preferences, the systematic approach to collecting the evidence, the clear separation of the concepts of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and transparent reporting of the decision process. The focus on transparency facilitates understanding and implementation and should empower patients, clinicians and other health care professionals to make informed choices.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Brożek et al. (2011) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a85598afc70cb81dc201f9fhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Users' guides to the medical literature : a manual for evidence-based clinical practice2002 · 1,192 citations
  2. 2Methodology for Guideline Development for the Seventh American College of Chest Physicians Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy2004 · 35 citations
  3. 3Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group2004 · 1,258 citations
  4. 4Principles of Biomedical Ethics.1984 · 4,564 citations
  5. 5Going from evidence to recommendations2008 · 1,812 citations