Entrar/Registro  
HOME SPANISH
 
Cirugía y Cirujanos
   
MENU

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board






>Journals >Cirugía y Cirujanos >Year 2009, Issue 5


Oñate-Ocaña LF, Ochoa-Carrillo FJ
Sistema GRADE para clasificar nivel de evidencia y grado de las recomendaciones para la elaboración de guías de buena práctica clínica
Cir Cir 2009; 77 (5)

Language: Español
References: 10
Page: 417-419
PDF: 72.98 Kb.


Full text




ABSTRACT

There is great inconsistency on how “Clinical Guideline Developers” worldwide rate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations because there are several classification systems in use. Therefore, medical guideline users face profound challenges in understanding articles on Clinical Guidelines. Many researchers are adopting the GRADE system to classify the quality of the available evidence and the strength of recommendations when preparing a manuscript on Clinical Guidelines. The GRADE system has advantages over previous rating systems, including being developed by a representative group of guideline developers, patent separation between quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, explicit evaluation of the importance of outcomes of alternative management strategies, and others. Consequently, in this brief review, we describe the reasons underlying the adoption of GRADE.


Key words: GRADE system, level of evidence, grade of recommendations, clinical practice guidelines.


REFERENCIAS

  1. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schünemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008;337:a744.

  2. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009;301: 831-841.

  3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-926.

  4. Kunz R, Djulbegovic B, Schunemann HJ, Stanulla M, Muti P, Guyatt G. Misconceptions, challenges, uncertainty, and progress in guideline recommendations. Semin Hematol 2008;45:167-175.

  5. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Second Edition. JAMA & Archives Journals: 2008.

  6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008;336:995-998.

  7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:1049-1051.

  8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Jaeschke R, Helfand M, Liberati A, et al. Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:1170-1173.

  9. van Spronsen E, Ingels KJ, Jansen AH, Graamans K, Fokkens WJ. Evidencebased recommendations regarding the differential diagnosis and assessment of nasal congestion: using the new GRADE system. Allergy 2008;63:820-833.

  10. Akl EA, van Doormaal FF, Barba M, Kamath G, Kim SY, Kuipers S, et al. Parenteral anticoagulation may prolong the survival of patients with limited small cell lung cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2008;27:4.






>Journals >Cirugía y Cirujanos >Year 2009, Issue 5
 

· Journal Index 
· Links 






       
Copyright 2019