Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces - revised recommendations 2012

European Journal of Neurology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 410-419

  Leone, M A ^a   Brainin, M ^b   Boon, P ^c   Pugliatti, M ^d   Keindl, M ^b   Bassetti, C L ^e  

^a Maggiore della Caritàa Hospital   (Italy)

^b DANUBE UNIVERSITY KREMS   (Austria)

^c GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SASSARI   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Guideline; Levels of evidence; Meta analysis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MORTALITY; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY;

EID: 84873989297     PISSN: 13515101     EISSN: 14681331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ene.12043     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Hughes RA, Barnes MP, Baron JC, Brainin M. Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces. Eur J Neurol 2001; 8: 549-550.
2. Gilhus NE, Barnes M, Brainin M. European Handbook of Neurological Management, 2nd edn, Vol. 1. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
3. Gilhus NE, Barnes M, Brainin M. European Handbook of Neurological Management, 2nd edn, Vol. 2. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
4. Brainin M, Barnes M, Baron JC, et al. Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces - revised recommendations 2004. Eur J Neurol 2004; 11: 577-581.
5. Glaszious P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004; 328: 39-41.
6. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e296.
7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926.
8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995-998.
9. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 1049-1051.
10. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008; 336: 1106-1110.
11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 1170-1173.
12. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008; 337: 327-330.
13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 380-382.
14. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383-394.
15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 395-400.
16. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401-406.
17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407-415.
18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence - publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1277-1282.
19. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence - imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1283-1293.
20. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1294-1302.
21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1303-1310.
22. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1311-1316.
23. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines 11 - making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 151-157.
24. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines 12. Preparing summary of findings tables - binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 158-172.
25. Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res 2005; 5: 25.
26. Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, Dorman PJ. Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1997; 314: 1580-1583.
27. Olesen J, Gustavsson A, Svensson M, Wittchen HU, Jönsson B; CDBE2010 study group; European Brain Council. The economic cost of brain disorders in Europe. Eur J Neurol 2012; 19: 155-162.
28. Heesen C, Solari A, Giordano A, Kasper J, Köpke S. Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: new treatment complexities urge patient engagement. J Neurol Sci 2011; 306: 192-197.