Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines

By J. Brożek, Elie A. Akl, P. Alonso-Coello, David M. Lang, Roman Jaeschke, John W. Williams, B. Phillips, M. Lelgemann, A. Lethaby, J. Bousquet and 2 more. Allergy. European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2009

818 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e6fb2fc18b7081d5ded5b0f046f9fed222f151dc

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

1. J. Brożek
2. Holger J. Schünemann
3. Jean-Louis Vincent

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. J. Brożek
2. Holger J. Schünemann

In Statistics and Probability

1. J. Brożek
2. Holger J. Schünemann
3. T. Coats

Citations in the corpus

• Guideline for Reversal of Antithrombotics in Intracranial Hemorrhage (2016, background): “These statements imply high confidence in the estimates of the effect of the intervention, but are garnered from indirect evidence that would be challenging to subject to a formalized GRADE evaluation [8–10].”
• Management of bleeding following major trauma: an updated European guideline (2010, methodology): “We have employed the GRADE [14-16] hierarchy or evidence to formulate each recommendation because it allows strong recommendations to be”
• Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 revision. (2010, background): “transparent GRADE approach.(16,17) The target audience of these guidelines is all physicians treating patients with AR, other health care professionals, health care policy makers,(1,13,18) and patients.”