Author:
Phi Linda,Ajaj Reem,Ramchandani Manisha H,Brant Xenia MC,Oluwadara Oluwadayo,Polinovsky Olga,Moradi David,Barkhordarian Andre,Sriphanlop Pathu,Ong Margaret,Giroux Amy,Lee Justin,Siddiqui Muniza,Ghodousi Nora,Chiappelli Francesco
Abstract
Clinicians use general practice guidelines as a source of support for their intervention, but how much confidence should they place on these recommendations? How much confidence should patients place on these recommendations? Various instruments are available to assess the quality of evidence of research, such as the revised Wong scale (R-Wong) which examines the quality of research design, methodology and data analysis, and the revision of the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR), which examines the quality of systematic reviews.The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an instrument called the GRADE system in order to grade the quality of the evidence in studies and to evaluate the strength of recommendation of the intervention that is proposed in the published article. The GRADE looks at four factors to determine the quality of the evidence: study design, study quality, consistency, and directness. After combining the four components and assessing the grade of the evidence, the strength of recommendation of the intervention is established. The GRADE, however, only makes a qualitative assessment of the evidence and does not generate quantifiable data.In this study, we have quantified both the grading of the quality of evidence and also the strength of recommendation of the original GRADE, hence expanding the GRADE. This expansion of the GRADE (Ex-GRADE) permits the creation of a new instrument that can produce tangible data and possibly bridge the gap between evidence-based research and evidence-based clinical practice.
Publisher
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Reference38 articles.
1. Chiappelli F, Navarro A, Moradi D, Manfrini E, Prolo P. Evidence-based research in complementary and alternative medicine III: treatment of patients with alzheimer’s disease Evid Based Complement Alternate Med 2006; 3 : 411-24.
2. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis O, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (RAMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance Open Dent J 2010; 4 : 84-91.
3. Chiappelli F, Cajulis O, Newman M. Comparative effectiveness research in evidence-based dental practice J Evid Based Dent Pract 2009; 9 : 57-8.
4. Atkins D, Best D, Briss P, et al. Education and debate: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 2004; 328 : 1-8.
5. Bauer J, Spackman S, Chiappelli F, Prolo P. Model of evidence-based dental decision making J Evid Based Dent Pract 2005; 5 : 189-97.
Cited by
47 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献