GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.
By J. Andrews, Holger J. Schünemann, Andrew D. Oxman, K. Pottie, J. Meerpohl, P. A. Coello, D. Rind, Victor M. Montori, J. Brito, S. Norris and 8 more. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2013
862 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8da288696c5840f9ddacad172309d197cc96c010
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In General Health Professions
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. (2018, methodology): “[PUBMED: 14960256] Guyatt 2011 Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1.”
- OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. (2019, methodology): “The key to formulating recommendations by GRADE methodology is to assess the balance between bene fi ts and harms of a particular intervention 19 .”
- Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society (2018, neutral): “Thus, the starting age of 45 years has been designated as a qualified recommendation given the limitations of the evidence base.(38) An absolute mortality benefit in younger age groups will be lower than for older adults and, as some of our reviewers have noted, there will be some increased patient ”
- Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening (2018, background): “The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation.(23) As noted earlier, a strong recommendation conveys the consensus that the benefits of adherence to the intervention outweigh the undesirable effects and that most patients would choose the inter”
- 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee (2020, background): “Conditional recommendations are those for which the majority of informed patients would choose to follow the recommended course of action, but some would not (14,15).”
- A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). (2015, background): “undesirable outcomes (estimated effects), and the confidence in the magnitude effect of the interventions on important outcomes [73].”
- Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: An Official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline (2020, methodology): “In instances where there was low certainty in the estimates of effect, the committee determined whether a strong recommendation was warranted based on paradigmatic situations outlined by Andrews et al [3].”
- An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline: Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. An Update of the 2011 Clinical Practice Guideline. (2015, positive): “The recommendations were either “strong” or “conditional,” according to the GRADE approach (13).”