Evidence Based Medicine:

Evidence Based Medicine:

Classifying the levels of recommendations in guidelines why GRADE? Magorzata Baa, MD, PhD Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine Department of Hygiene and Dietetics Guidelines what are they Guidelines what are they Guidelines what are they IOM, 2011 Clinical Practice Guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an

assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. Decision making and EBM Clinical scenario Clinical expertise Values and preferences evidence Standards 1. Transparency: details on guideline development and funding are explicit and publicly accessible 2. Management of conflicts of interest 3. Multidisciplinary guideline panel composition 4. Use of systematic reviews for guideline questions

5. Rating strength of recommendations 6. Clear articulation of recommendations 7. External review by a full spectrum of stakeholders 8. Updating Guideline quality 42 reviews of 626 guidelines 1980-2007 AGREE Instrument mean score 1988-2007 % in domains 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 S

pe co d an p p ur e os S r de

l ho ke a t m ve l vo in t en ur go i R

of m op l ve de t en it ar Cl Alonso-Coello P. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:e58 y

d an en es r p n tio a t p Ap y lit

bi a lic it Ed n li ir a o n pe e d nc de

e m co Re m en d de in ss la l

a er ov Guideline quality Domain scores over time 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

10 0 1988-1992 (9)SS 1993-1997 (102)SS 1998-2002 (291)SS Alonso-Coello P. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:e58 2003-2007 (206)NS Process Team COI Rules of work

Problem/topic evidence PICO (T) Groups of patients Management options Important outcomes Methods Evidence quality Benefits vs harms

Benefits vs costs Recommendation Process Problem/topic Systematic review Existing or new one Assessment of its validity evidence Evidence quality

Benefits vs harms Benefits vs costs Recommendation Cochrane review Antibiotics in acute otitis media Venekamp et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Review Antibiotics in acute otitis media - Venekamp et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Review GRADE

Systematic review Quality of evidence (levels of evidence) Problem/topic Evidence Evidence quality Benefits vs harms Benefits vs costs

Recommendation Hierarchy of Evidence Systematic review of RCTs Individual RCT Observational studies Basic research Clinical experience ADA grading for Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes Level Evidence

A Well-conducted large RCTs or properly conducted metaanalyses of RCTs B Well conducted cohort studies, registry, case-control study or properly conducted metaanalyses of cohort studies C RCTs with methodological flaws, biased observational studies, case series E Consensus of experts no studies

Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):S1S2 NCCN categories of evidence Categor Evidence (quality, quantity, consistency) and consensus y 1 High level evidence (i.e., high-powered RCTs or metaanalyses); uniform consensus (>=85%) 2A Lower level evidence; uniform consensus (>=85%) 2B Lower level evidence; consensus (>=50% but <85%) 3

Any level of evidence; major disagreement (>=25%) https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/categories_of_consensus.aspx European Society of Cardiology Level What it means A Multiple RCTs/ metaanalyses B Single RCT/ large nonRCT C

Consensus/small studies, retrospective, registries Class What it means I Evidence/general agreement intervention beneficial, useful, effective II Conflicting evidence/ divergent opinions IIa Evidence/opinion in favour

IIb Evidence/opinion less well established III Evidence/general agreement intervention not useful/effective, may be harmful ESC. Recommendations for Guideline Production. www.escardio.org GRADE Systematic review Summary of findings table (SoF) Quality of evidence Summary of

results Problem/topic Evidence Evidence quality Benefits vs harms All important outcomes All risk groups Benefits vs costs

Recommendation GRADE quality of evidence US GRADE network GRADE Systematic review Summary of findings table (SoF) Quality of evidence Summary of results Quality of body of evidence for each important outcome

Each important outcome assigned relative weight Decision which outcome critical Problem/topic Evidence Evidence quality Benefits vs harms Benefits vs costs

Recommendation Quality of evidence Cochrane review Antibiotics in acute otitis media Venekamp et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Review Process Problem/topic Evidence Lowest quality of evidence for any critical outcome

Evidence quality Benefits vs harms Benefits vs costs Recommendation GRADE Balance of benefits and harms Benefit certain Benefit uncertain Problem/topic

Evidence Evidence quality Benefits vs harms Benefits vs costs Recommendation Balance of desirable and undesirable effects For

strongconditional Against conditionalstrong GRADE Strength of recommendation strong (recommended) weak (suggested) Problem/topic Evidence Evidence quality

Benefits vs harms Benefits vs costs Recommendation problem recommendation Standards 1. Transparency: details on guideline development and funding are explicit and publicly accessible 2. Management of conflicts of interest 3. Multidisciplinary guideline panel composition

4. Use of systematic reviews for guideline questions 5. Rating strength of recommendations 6. Clear articulation of recommendations 7. External review by a full spectrum of stakeholders 8. Updating Thank you

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Indigenous Art - St Leonard&#x27;s College

    Indigenous Art - St Leonard's College

    aboriginal perspectives dialogue education this cd has been produced for teachers to use in the classroom. it is a condition of the use of this cd that it be used only by the people from schools that have purchased the...
  • State of International Electricity Markets & Stranded Asset

    State of International Electricity Markets & Stranded Asset

    State of International Electricity Markets & Stranded Asset Risk"The transition is underway and I see it as my job to ensure there is a smooth transition"Josh Frydenberg Minister of the Environment & Energy, August 2016. Tim Buckley, Director of Energy...
  • 2009 OUR ROUTE The Route  2005 Rally In

    2009 OUR ROUTE The Route 2005 Rally In

    2009 The Route OUR ROUTE 2005 Rally Facts In 2005, 43 Cars left London, 27 Made it to Mongolia, 14 Made it to the finish line 1 Car snapped clean in half ; 3 had engines fall out 1 Person...
  • STAPHYLOCOCCUS

    STAPHYLOCOCCUS

    Gram-psitivecocci. Micrococcaceae. family.. Facultative Anaerobic Gram-positive cocci .. includes the following Genera/Groups: Staphylococcus.. Arranged in Irregular Clusters ..Catalase+ve
  • Analyzing Intermittent Turbulence using EMD Method

    Analyzing Intermittent Turbulence using EMD Method

    Detection of Intermittent Turbulence In Stable Boundary Layer Using Empirical Mode Decomposition Xiaoning Gilliam, Christina Ho, and Sukanta Basu
  • Enunciación del sistema nominal

    Enunciación del sistema nominal

    Positiva (idem, eadem, idem / ipse, a, um). Negativa (indefinidos). is, ea, id Desinencias pronominales No tienen vocativo, excepto los posesivos. Desinencia -ius para el genitivo singular. Desinencia -i para el dativo singular. Desinencia -d para el nominativo y acusativo...
  • Idiographic and Nomothetic Approaches to Psychological ...

    Idiographic and Nomothetic Approaches to Psychological ...

    Millon and Davis '96 suggest that we should use the nomothetic approach to establish laws, first. We can then focus on a more idiographic understanding. This combined approach is a strength because some of the more successful approaches in real-life...
  • FLOW: ENSURING YOUR PhD/CHAPTER/ARTICLE IS WELLSTRUCTURED AND READS

    FLOW: ENSURING YOUR PhD/CHAPTER/ARTICLE IS WELLSTRUCTURED AND READS

    Theory and Flow . If your research is theory-driven, then you will need a chapter on the theory, outlining your particular approach, and whether you are hoping to develop the theory as one of your claims to value-added.