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

J. L. Broazek, E. A. Akl, E. Compalati, J. Kreis, L. Terracciano, A. Fiocchi, E. Ueffing, J. Andrews, P. Alonso-Coello, J. J. Meerpohl, D. M. Lang, R. Jaeschke, J. W. Williams, B. Phillips, A. Lethaby, P. Bossuyt, P. Glasziou, Mark Helfand, J. Watine, M. Afilalo & 7 others V. Welch, A. Montedori, I. Abraha, A. R. Horvath, J. Bousquet, G. H. Guyatt, H. J. Schünemann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

105 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)588-595
Number of pages8
JournalAllergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume66
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

Patient Preference
Practice Guidelines
Hypersensitivity
Guidelines
Delivery of Health Care
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • clinical practice guidelines
  • evidence-based medicine
  • GRADE

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology
  • Immunology and Allergy

Cite this

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines Part 3 of 3. the GRADE approach to developing recommendations. / Broazek, J. L.; Akl, E. A.; Compalati, E.; Kreis, J.; Terracciano, L.; Fiocchi, A.; Ueffing, E.; Andrews, J.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Meerpohl, J. J.; Lang, D. M.; Jaeschke, R.; Williams, J. W.; Phillips, B.; Lethaby, A.; Bossuyt, P.; Glasziou, P.; Helfand, Mark; Watine, J.; Afilalo, M.; Welch, V.; Montedori, A.; Abraha, I.; Horvath, A. R.; Bousquet, J.; Guyatt, G. H.; Schünemann, H. J.

In: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Vol. 66, No. 5, 05.2011, p. 588-595.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Broazek, 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, 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 2011, 'Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines Part 3 of 3. the GRADE approach to developing recommendations', Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 588-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x
Broazek, J. L. ; Akl, E. A. ; Compalati, E. ; Kreis, J. ; Terracciano, L. ; Fiocchi, A. ; Ueffing, E. ; Andrews, J. ; Alonso-Coello, P. ; Meerpohl, J. J. ; Lang, D. M. ; Jaeschke, R. ; Williams, J. W. ; Phillips, B. ; Lethaby, A. ; Bossuyt, P. ; Glasziou, P. ; Helfand, Mark ; Watine, J. ; Afilalo, M. ; Welch, V. ; Montedori, A. ; Abraha, I. ; Horvath, A. R. ; Bousquet, J. ; Guyatt, G. H. ; Schünemann, H. J. / Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines Part 3 of 3. the GRADE approach to developing recommendations. In: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2011 ; Vol. 66, No. 5. pp. 588-595.
@article{c6defd008be34ad281401bf58b2f95a5,
title = "Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines Part 3 of 3. the GRADE approach to developing recommendations",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "clinical practice guidelines, evidence-based medicine, GRADE",
author = "Broazek, {J. L.} and Akl, {E. A.} and E. Compalati and J. Kreis and L. Terracciano and A. Fiocchi and E. Ueffing and J. Andrews and P. Alonso-Coello and Meerpohl, {J. J.} and Lang, {D. M.} and R. Jaeschke and Williams, {J. W.} and B. Phillips and A. Lethaby and P. Bossuyt and P. Glasziou and Mark Helfand and J. Watine and M. Afilalo and V. Welch and A. Montedori and I. Abraha and Horvath, {A. R.} and J. Bousquet and Guyatt, {G. H.} and Sch{\"u}nemann, {H. J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "588--595",
journal = "Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology",
issn = "0108-1675",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines Part 3 of 3. the GRADE approach to developing recommendations

AU - Broazek, J. L.

AU - Akl, E. A.

AU - Compalati, E.

AU - Kreis, J.

AU - Terracciano, L.

AU - Fiocchi, A.

AU - Ueffing, E.

AU - Andrews, J.

AU - Alonso-Coello, P.

AU - Meerpohl, J. J.

AU - Lang, D. M.

AU - Jaeschke, R.

AU - Williams, J. W.

AU - Phillips, B.

AU - Lethaby, A.

AU - Bossuyt, P.

AU - Glasziou, P.

AU - Helfand, Mark

AU - Watine, J.

AU - Afilalo, M.

AU - Welch, V.

AU - Montedori, A.

AU - Abraha, I.

AU - Horvath, A. R.

AU - Bousquet, J.

AU - Guyatt, G. H.

AU - Schünemann, H. J.

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - clinical practice guidelines

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - GRADE

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953740060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953740060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 588

EP - 595

JO - Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

JF - Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

SN - 0108-1675

IS - 5

ER -