Guidelines for guideline developers: A systematic review of grading systems for medical tests

Implementation Science

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Gopalakrishna, Gowri ^a   Langendam, Miranda W ^b   Scholten, Rob J P M ^b   Bossuyt, Patrick M M ^a   Leeflang, Mariska M G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Diagnostic; Grade; Grading systems; Guideline development; Medical tests; Quality of evidence

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW;

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84880016517     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17485908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-78     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW. The GRADE Working Group Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. BMC Health Serv Res 2004, 4:38. 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38, 545647, 15615589, The GRADE Working Group.
2. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, Lux L. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). In AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016 2002, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD.
3. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996, 13(312(7023)):71-72.
4. Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006, 5:4-21.
5. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Linnet K, Moons KG. Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem 2012, 58(12):1636-1643. 10.1373/clinchem.2012.182576, 22730450.
6. Feinstein AR. Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on 'diagnostic tests. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56:330-332. 10.1136/jech.56.5.330, 1732143, 11964422.
7. Mrus JM. Getting beyond diagnostic accuracy: moving toward approaches that can be used in practice. Clin Infect Dis 2004, 38(10):1391-1393. 10.1086/420750, 15156476.
8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A. Schünemann HJ; GRADE working group: going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336(7652):1049-1051. 10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE, 2376019, 18467413.
9. Bossuyt PMM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ 2006, 332:1089-1092. 10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1089, 1458557, 16675820.
10. Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst 2006, 21(4):13. WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research.
11. Beck C, Cody M, Souder E, Zhang M, Small GW. Dementia diagnostic guidelines: methodologies, results, and implementation costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000, 48:1195-1203.
12. Devillé WL, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM. Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53(1):65-69. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00144-4, 10693905.
13. Leeflang MM, Scholten RJ, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM. Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(3):234-240. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014, 16488353.
14. AGREE Next Steps Consortium The AGREE II Instrument [Electronic version] 2009, http://www.agreetrust.org, AGREE Next Steps Consortium.
15. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Jaeschke R, Lang DM, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Helfand M, Ueffing E, Alonso-Coello P, Meerpohl J, Phillips B, Horvath AR, Bousquet J, Guyatt GH. Schunemann HJ for the GRADE working group: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy 2009, 64:1109-1116. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02083.x, 19489757.
16. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Compalati E, Kreis J, Terracciano L, Fiocchi A, Ueffing E, Andrews J, Alonso-Coello P, Meerpohl PJJ, Lang DM, Jaeschkel1 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, Schunemann HJ. GRADE Working Group Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations. Allergy 2011, 66:588-595. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x, 21241318, GRADE Working Group.
17. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, Williams JW, Kunz R, Craig J, Montori VM, Bossuyt P, Guyatt GH. GRADE Working Group GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008, 17(336(7653):1106-1110. GRADE Working Group.
18. Hsu J, Brozek JL, Terraciano L, Kreis J, Compalati E, Stein AT, Fiocchi A, Schünemann HJ. Application of GRADE: Making evidence-based recommendations about diagnostic tests in clinical practise guidelines. Implement Sci 2011, 6:62. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-62, 3126717, 21663655.
19. American Heart Association Practice Guidelines (AHAPG) Methodology Manual and Policies. From the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines 2010, Washington, D.C: American College of Cardiology Foundation, http://www.cardiosource.org/Science-And-Quality/Practice-Guidelines-and-Quality-Standards/Methodology.aspx., American Heart Association Practice Guidelines (AHAPG).
20. Dougados M, Betteridge N, Burmester GR, Euller-Ziegler L, Guillemin G, Hirvonen J, Lloyd J, Ozen S, Da Silva JAP, Emery P, Kalden JR, Kvien T, et al. EULAR standardised operating procedures for the elaboration, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations endorsed by the EULAR standing committees. Ann Rheum Dis 2004, 63:1172-1176. 10.1136/ard.2004.023697, 1755117, 15308532.
21. European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Recommendations for Guideline Production 2010, Bethesda: Committee for Practice Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, http://www.escardio.org/guidelines-surveys/esc-guidelines/about/Pages/rules-writing.aspx., European Society of Cardiology (ESC).
22. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, Haddow JE, Piper M, Calonge N, Dotson WD, Douglas MP, Berg AO. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009, 11(1):3-14. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318184137c, 2743609, 18813139.
23. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines 2009, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/how-nhmrc-develops-its-guidelines, Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council.
24. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of the scientific literature. Handbook series on preparing clinical practice guidelines 1999, Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp65.pdf., Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council.
25. NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines 1998, Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp30.pdf., NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council.
26. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Centre for health technology evaluation. Diagnostics Assessment Programme (DAP). Programme manual 2011, http://www.nice.org.uk/media/A0B!/97/DAPManualFINAL.pdf., National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
27. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force Procedure Manual. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05118-EF 2008, http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf08/methods/procmanual.pdf., U.S. Preventative Services Task Force.
28. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement https://www.icsi.org/guidelines__more/about_icsi_guidelines/.
29. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician 2004, 69(3):548-556.
30. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network SIGN Guideline Development Handbook: SIGN 50, http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/index.html, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.
31. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence 2009, http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025, Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine.
32. Thornton J, Alderson P, Tan T, Turner C, Latchem S, Shaw E, Ruiz F, Reken S, Mugglestone MA, Hill J, Neilson J, Westby M, et al. Introducing GRADE across the NICE clinical guideline program. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66(2):124-131. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.007, 22406196.
33. Cuello-García CA, Dávalos-Rodríguez ML. Perceptions and attitudes towards different grading systems from clinical guidelines developers. J Eval Clin Pract 2009, 15:1074-1076. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01319.x, 20367707.
34. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P. Schünemann HJ for the GRADE Working Group (2008): Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336:924-926. 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD, 2335261, 18436948.
35. Burgers JS, Cluzeau FA, Hanna SE, Hunt C, Grol R. Characteristics of high-quality guidelines: evaluation of 86 clinical guidelines developed in ten European countries and Canada. Int J Technol Assess Healthcare 2003, 19(1):148-157.
36. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 2000, 355:103-105. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)02171-6, 10675167.
37. Centre for Evidence based Medicine, University of Oxford, http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1036.
38. Ferrante di Ruffano L, Hyde CJ, McCaffery KJ, Bossuyt PMM, Deeks JJ. Assessing the value of diagnostic tests - a framework for designing and evaluating trials. BMJ 2012, 344:e686. 10.1136/bmj.e686, 22354600.
39. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991, 11:88-94. 10.1177/0272989X9101100203, 1907710.