Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 55: 853-855, 2009. First published March 19, 2009; 10.1373/clinchem.2008.117614
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2008.117614v1
55/5/853    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Horvath, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Horvath, A. R.
(Clinical Chemistry. 2009;55:853-855.)
© 2009 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Perspective

Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations for Diagnostic Tests and Strategies

Andrea Rita Horvath1,a

1 Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Szeged, Medical Faculty, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi Clinical Center, Szeged, Hungary.

aAddress correspondence to the author at: Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Szeged, Medical Faculty, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi Clinical Center, Semmelweis u. 6, Szeged, H-6725 Hungary. E-mail ahorvath@clab.szote.u-szeged.hu.

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Faced with the plethora of new diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, busy physicians need clear guidance on the best approaches to follow for their patients. This need has led to such a proliferation of practice guidelines (PGs)1 that for diabetes mellitus alone, for example, more than 150 guidelines are available worldwide. In the "jungle" of PGs, many provide conflicting guidance, and the literature displays extensive variation in the approaches to formulating recommendations. Therefore, there is an international move toward standardizing guideline methodology so that recommendations are conceived in a systematic and transparent process and that the link between the evidence and the strength of recommendations is explicitly documented. This commentary provides a brief overview of the principles for assessing the strength of evidence and the challenges guideline developers face in formulating graded recommendations related to the use of laboratory tests.

Guidelines aim to close the gap between research and practice and to provide rigorously developed, valid, and applicable recommendations for achieving the best possible outcomes. The formulation of evidence-based guidelines implies a process in which the body of evidence has been systematically explored, its quality critically evaluated, and the research findings synthesized and translated into recommendations for best practice. In PGs, quality of evidence indicates the degree of confidence that the evidence is adequate to support recommendations. Quality of evidence can be judged by considering the following aspects (1):

  1. Study design usually defines the level of evidence. For example, questions on the efficacy of treatment are best answered by randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and questions about diagnostic accuracy are best addressed by properly designed prospective cohort studies.
  2. Internal validity refers to a lack of design-related biases that could threaten the soundness of the study. In diagnostic accuracy studies, various forms of verification biases, spectrum bias, or review bias can . . . [Full Text of this Article]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.