| High |
High-quality RCTs: High-quality includes good design, low risk of bias, and confidence in the estimate Systematic reviews of high-quality RCTs
|
| Moderate |
RCTs with important limitations: Limitations of RCTs could include inadequate power, poor follow-up, missing quality elements like allocation concealment, per-protocol analysis, etc High-quality observational studies: High-quality observational studies typically include prospective cohort studies of large populations mirroring Canadian populations and adequate adjustment for confounding Systematic reviews of RCTs with important limitations or high-quality observation studies
|
| Low |
RCTs with profound limitations: Profound limitations in RCTs include those listed above but larger and multiple concerns (eg, a trial grossly underpowered for clinical outcomes, CIs that include meaningful harm and benefit, 50% loss to follow-up, etc) Observational studies with important limitations: Observational studies with important limitations might include retrospective studies, small or specific subpopulations, high-risk confounding, etc Other lower evidence studies like case series or studies without patient-oriented outcomes (physiologic studies) Systematic reviews including any of these studies
|