Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
Research ArticlePractice

From ABCs to GRADE

Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care’s new rating system for clinical practice guidelines

Neil Bell, Sarah Connor Gorber, Marcello Tonelli, Kevin Pottie, Harminder Singh, Michel Joffres and Elizabeth Shaw
Canadian Family Physician December 2013, 59 (12) 1282-1289;
Neil Bell
Works in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Connor Gorber
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sarah.connorgorber@phac-aspc.gc.ca
Marcello Tonelli
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin Pottie
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harminder Singh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michel Joffres
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth Shaw
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) was reestablished in 2010 with a mandate to develop and disseminate clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for primary and preventive care. The CTFPHC uses the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) system to rate the quality of its evidence and the strength of its recommendation statements. The GRADE system provides a structured and transparent process for guideline development that begins at framing key questions and proceeds through the evaluation of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as incorporation of patient preferences and resource implications, to arrive at recommendations. This article outlines key concepts of the GRADE process to assist primary care practitioners in understanding the GRADE recommendations and discussing these recommendations with patients.

Background

Family physicians and other primary care health professionals often seek guidance from CPGs about how to better manage their patients. Family physicians are confronted with a bewildering array of CPGs developed by a large variety of government agencies and professional organizations. It is estimated that there are currently at least 2400 guidelines in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Guideline Clearinghouse1; more than 6400 guidelines in the database of the Guidelines International Network2; and more than 2700 in the Canadian Medical Association’s CPG database.3 Each database includes multiple guidelines on the same topic, often with conflicting recommendations.4,5 Recently, there has also been increasing concern about the quality of CPGs owing to potential bias on the part of the guideline developers6,7 or the quality of the evidence used to develop the CPGs.5,7–9 For family physicians, these issues raise concerns about the validity of the recommendations and create confusion over which to apply in practice.

Family physicians are also confronted with a diverse range of systems used in CPGs to rate the quality of scientific evidence and the strength of recommendations. These different rating systems make it difficult for family physicians to understand and effectively communicate the benefits and harms of the practices recommended in CPGs to their patients. In 1979, the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination published one of the first systems to explicitly characterize the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.10 This system ranked quality of evidence from I to III and classified the strength of recommendations from A to E. Although widely adopted because of its simplicity, this system did not provide a detailed quality assessment of the evidence for benefits and harms important to patients, nor did it explicitly consider the benefits versus possible harms in the strength of recommendations.11 By 2002, at least 121 different systems had been developed that were used in publications, systematic reviews, and CPGs.12 More recently, government and professional organizations tasked with the development of CPGs in Canada, the United States, Australia, and Europe have developed and implemented a variety of systems to evaluate the quality of evidence and rate the strength of recommendations for CPGs.13–15 Many of these systems use different letters, numbers, or symbols to communicate similar recommendations on specific health issues, and often the same letter or number has different meanings in the various systems.16

Why GRADE?

To overcome the problems related to the inconsistent rating of evidence and the confusion with different rating systems, an international group of health professionals, researchers, and guideline developers created the GRADE system in 2004.17 The GRADE system rates the quality of evidence and grades the strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and CPGs. The GRADE system is structured and transparent. It is designed for systematic reviews (eg, Cochrane systematic reviews) and guidelines that examine alternative management strategies or interventions, which might include no intervention or current best practice.18 The GRADE system also informs clinician and patient decision making in clinical practice settings and supports production of informed health policy. It is now used or endorsed by at least 70 different organizations throughout the world, including the World Health Organization, UpToDate, and the Cochrane Collaboration.19

The CTFPHC was reestablished with a mandate to develop and disseminate CPGs for primary and preventive care based on systematic analysis of scientific evidence.20 The CTFPHC guidelines address primary or secondary prevention of conditions with a substantial health burden; topics are selected based on literature review and input from practitioners and the public.

How do I interpret GRADE recommendations?

Many family physicians and primary care health professionals (who are the target audience of the CTFPHC guidelines) are potentially unfamiliar with GRADE processes and therefore might be unsure of how to interpret the potential benefits and harms of practices recommended by the CTFPHC. This article outlines key concepts of the GRADE process using examples from the recently published CTFPHC guidelines on breast cancer screening21 to assist primary care practitioners in understanding the GRADE recommendations and discussing these recommendations with patients.

Although family physicians and other primary health care providers need not be aware of all the steps and processes involved in the development of CPGs using the GRADE methodology, consideration of several key elements in the GRADE guideline development process will ensure an overall understanding of the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations provided by this system. These elements include an understanding of the analytic framework and methods used in the literature review, the summaries of evidence tables, and the GRADE recommendations and how they can inform physician-patient decision making in clinical practice. More complete and detailed descriptions of the GRADE process for guideline developers and authors of systematic reviews have recently been published (www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/index.htm).

An overview of the CTFPHC guideline development process that highlights these key elements of GRADE is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

Steps in the CTFPHC guideline development process

CTFPHC—Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

*Highlighted steps are discussed in the paper.

Does the guideline apply to my patient?

The importance of the analytic framework to practising family physicians and other primary health care practitioners is to provide an understanding of the patient populations to which the guideline recommendations would apply. This framework also identifies issues that were included or excluded from consideration in guideline development. The analytic framework and key questions provide the foundation for the literature review and guideline recommendation. This framework consists of a flow diagram with key questions and contextual questions. Key questions are those of main importance to clinicians and patients; they define the scope and focus of the evidence reviews. The contextual questions provide further information about how to interpret and apply the recommendations in our diverse Canadian settings; they also provide information about values and preferences, cost-effectiveness, and process and outcome indicators. Key questions are answered with a full systematic review, while for contextual questions a review of key studies and other systematic reviews is performed only for literature published in the past 5 years.

In the development of the analytic framework, guideline developers define the patient population, the intervention of interest, the comparator, and the outcome of interest. The process is also known as PICO (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) and is now a widely accepted standard for development of guidelines and systematic reviews. An example of an analytic framework and key questions is shown in Figure 2 and Box 1.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2.

Example of an analytical framework using the breast cancer screening evidence review

BSE—breast self-examination, CBE—clinical breast examination, MRI—magnetic resonance imaging.

How good is the evidence?

In GRADE, the continuum of the quality of evidence is rated on a 4-point scale of high, moderate, low, or very low depending on the certainty that the results reflect the true effect of the intervention on the outcome (Table 1).22 Evidence is graded as high quality when the CTFPHC has high confidence that the true effect of an intervention or approach lies close to the estimate of effect, while lower-quality evidence indicates that the true effect might be substantially different from the estimate of effect.22 The GRADE system considers several factors in determining the quality of the evidence. As a starting point, evidence of randomized controlled studies begins as high-quality evidence, while evidence from observational studies begins as low-quality evidence. Evidence can then be downgraded or upgraded depending on several factors. Evidence is downgraded based on consideration of 5 factors: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Evidence can be upgraded based on 3 factors: large effect, dose response, and consideration of all possible confounders (Tables 2 and 3).23–29

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Interpretation of evidence levels used to GRADE CTFPHC recommendations

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Factors that lead to decreasing evidence quality in the GRADE framework

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Factors that lead to increasing evidence quality in the GRADE framework

For example, the evidence supporting the use of hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women in the early 1990s would have received a low-quality or low rating in the GRADE system because it was based on inconsistent observational studies.30 Such a rating means further research could very likely have an important effect on the confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. In fact, further research did show increased cardiovascular harms with hormone replacement, and this evidence would ultimately reverse the recommendation for hormone replacement therapy. In summary, the GRADE system attempts to improve the estimate of the certainty of effects, thus providing clinicians and patients with more precise information on which to base their decisions.

Box 1. Example of key questions using the breast cancer screening evidence review

Key questions
  • 1a. Does screening with mammography (film and digital) or MRI decrease breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality among women aged 40 to 49 y and ≥ 70 y?

  • 1b. Does CBE screening decrease breast cancer mortality for women of all ages? Alone or with mammography?

  • 1c. Does BSE practice decrease breast cancer mortality for women of all ages?

  • 2a. What are the harms associated with screening with mammography (film and digital) and MRI?

  • 2b. What are the harms associated with CBE?

  • 2c. What are the harms associated with BSE?

Contextual questions
  1. What are the patient values and preferences related to screening for breast cancer?

  2. Are there subgroups of the Canadian population who have a higher burden of breast cancer or for whom it would be difficult to implement screening programs? Subgroup analysis that explores issues of burden of disease, screening rates, and special implementation issues includes the following:

    • aboriginal women,

    • women living in rural or remote areas, and

    • consideration of ethnicity

  3. What is the optimal mammography screening frequency?

  4. What is the cost-effectiveness of screening for breast cancer?

  • BSE—breast self-examination, CBE—clinical breast examination, MRI—magnetic resonance imaging.

  • The GRADE evidence tables

    The GRADE system has developed specific approaches for the presentation of the results of the systematic literature reviews based on the analytic framework. The CTFPHC uses the GRADE evidence profile to present its results. The evidence profile table summarizes the size of the study population, the effect of the intervention, and the quality of the evidence. Table 4 provides an example of an evidence profile developed for the CTFPHC guideline on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years.4

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Evidence summary of benefits associated with screening mammography: The content of the evidence profile table is provided in 13 standardized columns. The first column provides information about the number of studies and the study design used to determine the effectiveness of screening mammography for women in this age range (N = 8 RCTs). Columns 2 to 7 provide an assessment of the quality of these studies. Footnotes provide further explanations as required. For instance, in column 3 (risk of bias) we indicate a serious concern about the potential risk of bias in the studies. This is based on the fact that only 3 of the 8 trials were considered truly randomized; in 5 of the trials it was not clear if investigators were blinded to the groups to which the patients were assigned or whether those enrolling patients were aware of which group patients were being assigned to. There were no other concerns about quality: results of all trials were consistent, the patients and the interventions were similar to the patients that we were studying, the samples sizes were large, the CIs were narrow, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Columns 8 to 11 in the table present the summary of our meta-analysis to determine the overall effectiveness of mammography screening in women aged 40–49 y. The number of deaths seen in the control and experimental groups are provided in columns 8 and 9. In columns 10 and 11, the estimates of the relative and absolute risk reductions that can be attributed to screening mammography are provided. Relative risk is used to compare risks between 2 different groups of people, often those who were exposed to an intervention and those who were not. Meta-analysis of mammography screening studies with women aged 40–49 y found a reduction of breast cancer risk of 15% (equivalent to an RR of 0.85) for women who were screened compared with women who were not screened. Absolute risk focuses on an individual’s risk of getting a disease in a specific period of time and can be expressed as a percentage or a rate (eg, 10% or 1 in 10). In this example, this means that 474 fewer women per million (or 1 in approximately 2100) will die as a result of screening. Column 12 provides an overall rating of the quality. Column 13 highlights the importance of the results.

    How does GRADE translate evidence into recommendations?

    In GRADE, the assessment of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations are separate. At present, GRADE recommendations are reported as either strong or weak. In addition to quality of evidence, GRADE also explicitly considers the balance between the benefits and harms, the values and preferences of patients, and the resource implications of an intervention in the determination of the strength of recommendations. While the quality of evidence and the balance between the benefits and harms are considered by the CTFPHC to be the most important elements, guideline developers might choose to place some or limited emphasis on resource implications and might have limited data on the values and preferences of patients for specific interventions.

    Strong recommendations are more likely when there is a large difference between the benefits and harms and certainty around that difference, when there is greater certainty or similarity in values and preferences, and when the evidence quality is higher.31 Weak recommendations indicate that greater uncertainty exists (Figure 3).29 Strong recommendations can be made even with low-quality evidence, assuming that the balance between benefits and harms is clear and values and preferences are consistent, while weak recommendations can be made based on high-quality evidence. As an example, although only anecdotal evidence (low quality) suggests that parachutes are an effective intervention to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with jumping from an airplane,32 the recommendation to use a parachute would be classified as strong.

    Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 3.

    Balancing the benefits and harms to determine the strength of a recommendation

    Based on a concept presented by Santesso and Gauld.29

    When the CTFPHC makes strong recommendations, clinicians can interpret this to mean that most individuals should receive the intervention in question, while for weak recommendations the focus shifts to helping patients make informed decisions, taking into account the benefits and harms, as well as their individual values and preferences. With weak recommendations, clinicians must recognize that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. For example, a weak recommendation against mammography in average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years implies that (although most women of this age would not choose to be screened) regular screening could be appropriate in a 40- to 49-year-old woman who places a relatively higher value on preventing death from breast cancer and a relatively lower value on avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures. Similarly, a weak recommendation for mammography in average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years implies that screening would not necessarily be required or appropriate in a woman of this age who places a relatively lower value on preventing death from breast cancer and a relatively higher value on avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures.

    How can GRADE recommendations inform patient-physician decision making?

    Effective communication between physicians and patients is a key concept of family medicine and has been associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with a variety of health conditions.33 Guideline developers are faced with the challenge of providing easily understood information on benefits and harms of recommendations to inform the discussion between physician and patient and assist in the decision-making process. Patients with the same condition or risk factors might have quite different values or preferences, life circumstances, or access to medical care. Understanding these differences along with the benefits and harms of the guideline recommendations would support shared decision making by the patient and physician.

    To support informed physician-patient decision making related to their guidelines, the CTFPHC has developed several tools in a collaborative manner with researchers and knowledge translation experts in Canada. These tools also undergo a process of internal and external peer review and user testing with patients and physicians to ensure that the scientific information is correct and presented in an easily understood format. Tools that have been developed and tested for the CTFPHC guideline on screening with mammography include a video illustrating a doctor-patient interaction about screening, a list of frequently asked questions on breast cancer screening for patients, a flowchart to help women gauge whether screening is right for them, and decision aids that present risks and benefits in ways that patients can understand. An example of a tool developed to assist in decision making for screening with mammography for breast cancer for women between the ages of 40 and 49 is shown in Figure 4.* These tools are available on the CTFPHC website (http://canadiantaskforce.ca).

    Family physicians and GRADE

    The GRADE system provides a rigorous approach to the development of CPGs that is increasingly being used by many professional and government organizations throughout the world. Family physicians need to be able to appreciate the benefits and harms and the certainty of evidence behind clinical recommendations. The use of the GRADE methodology by the developers of CPGs and systematic reviews can provide family physicians and other primary care health professionals with a guide-post of high quality for CPGs and systematic reviews. With the increasing use of GRADE, family physicians and other primary care health professionals should become familiar with the GRADE approach to assessment of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations so that they can effectively use CPGs and systematic reviews developed by this approach when making decisions with their patients.

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests

      None declared

    • ↵* Figure 4 is available at www.cfp.ca. Go to the full text of this article online, then click on CFPlus in the menu at the top right-hand side of the page.

    • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [website]
      . National Guideline Clearinghouse. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Available from: www.guideline.gov. Accessed 2012 Feb 16.
    2. 2.↵
      Guidelines International Network [website]. Berlin, Ger: Guidelines International Network; 2013. Available from: www.g-i-n.net. Accessed 2012 Feb 16.
    3. 3.↵
      1. Canadian Medical Association [website]
      . CMA Infobase: clinical practice guidelines. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2013. Available from: www.cma.ca/clinicalresources/practiceguidelines. Accessed 2012 Jun 12.
    4. 4.↵
      1. Han PK,
      2. Klabunde CN,
      3. Breen N,
      4. Yuan G,
      5. Grauman A,
      6. Davis WW,
      7. et al
      . Multiple clinical practice guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening: perceptions of US primary care physicians. Med Care 2011;49(2):139-48.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. 5.↵
      1. Brawley O,
      2. Byers T,
      3. Chen A,
      4. Pignone M,
      5. Ransohoff D,
      6. Schenk M,
      7. et al
      . New American Cancer Society process for creating trustworthy cancer screening guidelines. JAMA 2011;306(22):2495-9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. 6.↵
      1. Shaneyfelt TM,
      2. Centor RM
      . Reassessment of clinical practice guidelines: go gently into that good night. JAMA 2009;301(8):868-9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. 7.↵
      1. Kuehn BM
      . IOM set out “gold standard” practices for creating guidelines, systematic reviews. JAMA 2011;305(18):1846-8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. 8.
      1. Institute of Medicine
      . Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
    9. 9.↵
      1. Institute of Medicine
      . Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
    10. 10.↵
      1. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination
      . The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J 1979;121(9):1193-254.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. 11.↵
      1. Atkins D,
      2. Eccles M,
      3. Flottrop S,
      4. Guyatt GH,
      5. Henry D,
      6. Hill S,
      7. et al
      . Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4(1):38.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. 12.↵
      Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Summary, evidence report/ technology assessment: no. 47. AHRQ pub no. 02-E015.
    13. 13.↵
      1. Harbour R,
      2. Miller J
      . A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 2001;323(7308):334-6.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    14. 14.
      1. Dahm P,
      2. Djubegovic B
      . The Australian ‘FORM’ approach to guideline development: the quest for a perfect system. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:17.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. 15.↵
      1. US Preventive Services Task Force
      . Grade definitions. Rockville, MD: US Preventive Services Task Force; 2008. Available from: www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm. Accessed 2012 Aug 30.
    16. 16.↵
      1. Schünemann HJ,
      2. Best D,
      3. Vist G,
      4. Oxman AD,
      5. GRADE Working Group
      . Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ 2003;169(7):677-80.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. 17.↵
      1. GRADE Working Group
      . Grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328(7454):1490.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. 18.↵
      1. Guyatt G,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Akl EA,
      4. Kunz R,
      5. Vist R,
      6. Brozek J,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary finding tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(4):383-94.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. 19.↵
      1. GRADE Working Group [website]
      . Organizations that have endorsed or that are using GRADE. GRADE Working Group; 2013. Available from: www.gradeworkinggroup.org/society/index.htm. Accessed 2013 Oct 31.
    20. 20.↵
      1. Birtwhistle R,
      2. Pottie K,
      3. Shaw E,
      4. Dickinson JA,
      5. Brauer P,
      6. Fortin M,
      7. et al
      . Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. We’re back! Can Fam Physician 2012;58:13-5. (Eng), e1–4 (Fr).
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    21. 21.↵
      1. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
      . Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40–74 years. CMAJ 2011;183(17):1991-2001.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    22. 22.↵
      1. Balshem H,
      2. Helfand M,
      3. Schunemann HJ,
      4. Oxman AD,
      5. Kunz R,
      6. Brozek J,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence—introduction. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(4):401-6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. 23.↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Vist G,
      4. Kunz R,
      5. Brozek J,
      6. Alonso-Coello P,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(4):407-15.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. 24.
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R,
      4. Woodcock J,
      5. Brozek J,
      6. Helfand M,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1294-302.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. 25.
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R,
      4. Woodcock J,
      5. Brozek J,
      6. Helfand M,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1303-10.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. 26.
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R,
      4. Brozek J,
      5. Alonso-Coello P,
      6. Rind D,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1283-93.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. 27.↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Montori V,
      4. Vist G,
      5. Kunz R,
      6. Brozek J,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1277-82.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. 28.↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Sultan S,
      4. Glasziou P,
      5. Akl EA,
      6. Alonso-Coello P,
      7. et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1311-6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. 29.↵
      1. Santesso N,
      2. Gauld M
      . GRADE and guideline development. Paper presented at: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Meeting; November 2011; Ottawa, ON.
    30. 30.↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Vist GE,
      4. Kunz R,
      5. Falck-Ytter Y,
      6. Alonson-Coello P,
      7. et al
      . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924-6.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    31. 31.↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R,
      4. Falck-Ytter Y,
      5. Vist GE,
      6. Liberati A,
      7. et al
      . GRADE Working Group. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7652):1049-51.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    32. 32.↵
      1. Smith GC,
      2. Pell JP
      . Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 2003;327(7429):1459-61.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. 33.↵
      1. Stewart MA
      . Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 1995;152(9):1423-33.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    In this issue

    Canadian Family Physician: 59 (12)
    Canadian Family Physician
    Vol. 59, Issue 12
    1 Dec 2013
    • Table of Contents
    • About the Cover
    • Index by author
    Print
    Download PDF
    Article Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    From ABCs to GRADE
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    From ABCs to GRADE
    Neil Bell, Sarah Connor Gorber, Marcello Tonelli, Kevin Pottie, Harminder Singh, Michel Joffres, Elizabeth Shaw
    Canadian Family Physician Dec 2013, 59 (12) 1282-1289;

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Respond to this article
    Share
    From ABCs to GRADE
    Neil Bell, Sarah Connor Gorber, Marcello Tonelli, Kevin Pottie, Harminder Singh, Michel Joffres, Elizabeth Shaw
    Canadian Family Physician Dec 2013, 59 (12) 1282-1289;
    Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Background
      • Why GRADE?
      • How do I interpret GRADE recommendations?
      • Does the guideline apply to my patient?
      • How good is the evidence?
      • The GRADE evidence tables
      • How does GRADE translate evidence into recommendations?
      • How can GRADE recommendations inform patient-physician decision making?
      • Family physicians and GRADE
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • CFPlus
    • Info & Metrics
    • eLetters
    • PDF

    Related Articles

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

    Cited By...

    • Le guide de sante Greig pour jeunes adultes: Soins preventifs pour les jeunes adultes de 18 a 24 ans
    • Greig Health Record for Young Adults: Preventive health care for young adults aged 18 to 24 years
    • Choisir les guides de pratique clinique a utiliser
    • Choosing guidelines to use in your practice
    • Clarifier les valeurs et preferences des patients pour eclairer la prise de decision partagee sur le depistage preventif
    • Eliciting patient values and preferences to inform shared decision making in preventive screening
    • Prendre de meilleures decisions en matiere de depistage preventif: Equilibrer bienfaits et prejudices
    • Better decision making in preventive health screening: Balancing benefits and harms
    • Google Scholar

    More in this TOC Section

    • Determining if and how older patients can safely stay at home with additional services
    • Managing type 2 diabetes in primary care during COVID-19
    • Effectiveness of dermoscopy in skin cancer diagnosis
    Show more Practice

    Similar Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Collections - English
    • Collections - Française

    For Authors

    • Authors and Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Permissions
    • Terms of Use

    General Information

    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Subscribers

    Journal Services

    • Email Alerts
    • Twitter
    • RSS Feeds

    Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

    Powered by HighWire