Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations A Perspective 英文参考文献.docVIP

下载本文档

18
0
约1.35万字
约 3页
2017-05-11 发布于上海
举报
版权申诉

Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations A Perspective 英文参考文献.doc

1、本文档共3页，可阅读全部内容。
2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations A Perspective 英文参考文献

Perspective GradingQualityofEvidenceandStrengthof Recommendations:APerspective MohammedT.Ansari1*,AlexanderTsertsvadze1,DavidMoher1,2 1OttawaMethodsCentre,ClinicalEpidemiologyProgram,OttawaHospitalResearchInstitute,Ottawa,Canada,2DepartmentofEpidemiologyCommunityMedicine, FacultyofMedicine,UniversityofOttawa,Ottawa,Canada Evidence-based practice requires trans- lating research findings into clinical and policy decision making. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) serve this purpose by evaluating evidence and making recom- mendations about therapeutic and diag- nostic interventions and clinical manage- ment strategies. Systematic reviews are consideredthebestavailableevidenceand are often used in the development of CPGs [1,2]. Since guideline development involves an assessment of the overall qualityofevidenceandcomplexbalancing of trade-offs between the important ben- efitsandharmsofanygivenintervention, arbitrariness, value judgements, and sub- jectivity ultimately come into play in the guidelinedevelopmentprocessandassoci- ated recommendations [3]. In order to minimize cognitive bias in interpreting evidenceand maketheinherentlysubjec- tive process more transparent and consis- tent, CPGs have traditionally employed formal systems or frameworks to under- standandgradethequalityofthebodyof evidence and strength of recommenda- tions[4,5]. evidence, we would have concurred with someofKavanagh’scriticismofGRADE. However,weseeGRADEasaframework uncoveringimplicitsubjectivityandinvok- ing a systematic, explicit, judicious, and transparent approach to interpreting, as opposedto‘‘capturing’’evidence.Itreveals howvaluesareassignedtojudgments,but whatvaluesareassigneditdoesnotdictate simplybecauseitcannotdictate.Belowwe firstpresentourconcernaboutoneaspectof the GRADE framework and then our perspectiveonthevariouscriticismsofit. LinkedResearchArticle This Perspective discusses the fol- lowingnewPolicyForumpublished inPLoSMedicine: Kavanagh B (2009) The GRADE System for Ra