AHRQ Series Paper 5: Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program

被引:350
作者
Owens, Douglas K. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lohr, Kathleen N. [4 ]
Atkins, David [5 ]
Treadwell, Jonathan R. [6 ]
Reston, James T. [6 ]
Bass, Eric B. [7 ]
Chang, Stephanie [8 ]
Helfand, Mark [9 ,10 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Ctr Primary Care & Outcomes Res, Stanford UCSF Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[2] VA Palo Alto Healthcare Syst, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
[3] Stanford Univ, Ctr Primary Care & Outcomes Res, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
[4] RTI Int, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[5] Dept Vet Affairs, Hlth Serv Res & Dev Serv, Qual Enhancement Res Initiat, Washington, DC 20420 USA
[6] ECRI Inst, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 USA
[7] Johns Hopkins Univ, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
[8] Agcy Healthcare Res & Qual, Ctr Outcomes & Evidence, Rockville, MD 20850 USA
[9] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Portland, OR 97207 USA
[10] Portland VA Med Ctr, Portland, OR 97207 USA
关键词
Comparative effectiveness; Evidence-based medicine; Methods; Strength of evidence; Systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.009
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To establish guidance on grading strength of evidence for the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Study Design and Setting: Authors reviewed authoritative systems for grading strength of evidence, identified domains and methods that should be considered when grading bodies of evidence in systematic reviews, considered public comments on an earlier draft, and discussed the approach with representatives of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. Results: The EPC approach is conceptually similar to the GRADE system of evidence rating; it requires assessment of four domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Additional domains to be used when appropriate include dose response association, presence of confounders that would diminish an observed effect, strength of association, and publication bias. Strength of evidence receives a single grade: high, moderate, low, or insufficient. We give definitions, examples, mechanisms for scoring domains, and an approach for assigning strength of evidence. Conclusion: EPCs should grade strength of evidence separately for each major outcome and, for comparative effectiveness reviews, all major comparisons. We will collaborate with the GRADE group to address ongoing challenges in assessing the strength of evidence. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:513 / 523
页数:11
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], CLIN EPIDEMIOLOGY CL
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2006, BMC MED RES METHODOL, DOI DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-6-52
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2002, SYSTEMS RATE STRENGT
[4]   Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations -: I:: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group -: art. no. 38 [J].
Atkins, D ;
Eccles, M ;
Flottorp, S ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Henry, D ;
Hill, S ;
Liberati, A ;
O'Connell, D ;
Oxman, AD ;
Phillips, B ;
Schünemann, H ;
Edejer, TTT ;
Vist, GE ;
Williams, JW .
BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2004, 4 (1)
[5]   Better information for better health care: The evidence-based practice center program and the agency for healthcare research and quality [J].
Atkins, D ;
Fink, K ;
Slutsky, J .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2005, 142 (12) :1035-1041
[6]   Fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology [J].
Charlton, BG .
CURRENT CONTROLLED TRIALS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2001, 2 (01) :2-7
[7]   Discrepancies among megatrials [J].
Furukawa, TA ;
Streiner, DL ;
Hori, S .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 53 (12) :1193-1199
[8]   A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies [J].
Gartlehner, Gerald ;
Hansen, Richard A. ;
Nissman, Daniel ;
Lohr, Kathleen N. ;
Carey, Timothy S. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (10) :1040-1048
[9]   GRADE:: what is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? [J].
Guyatt, Gordon H. ;
Oxman, Andrew D. ;
Vist, Gunn E. ;
Kunz, Regina ;
Falck-Ytter, Yngve ;
Schunemann, Holger .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7651) :995-999B
[10]   GRADE:: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations [J].
Guyatt, Gordon H. ;
Oxman, Andrew D. ;
Vist, Gunn E. ;
Kunz, Regina ;
Falck-Ytter, Yngve ;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo ;
Schuenemann, Holger J. .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7650) :924-926