Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen

Jahrgang 106, Heft 5, 00-2012

Seiten 357-368 (12)

   Kompletten Artikel im .pdf Format anzeigen

Gero Langer; Joerg J. Meerpohl; Matthias Perleth; Gerald Gartlehner; Angela Kaminski-Hartenthaler; Holger Schünemann

Summary

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for the use of the GRADE system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence has been collected and summarised, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect.

Recommendations are characterised as strong or weak (alternative terms: conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating.

Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations.

Keywords

GRADE; systematische Übersichtsarbeiten; Leitlinien; HTA-Berichte; Qualität der Evidenz; Empfehlungsstärke; GRADE; systematic reviews; clinical practice guidelines; health technology assessment; quality of evidence; strength of recommendation

DOI (Digital Object Identifier):   10.1016/j.zefq.2012.05.017