Hello! You're looking at a policy document report on Overton

We track government policy, guidelines, think tank research, working papers and more to help our customers see the impact and influence of their work.

If you fund, produce or manage research or work to influence policy, we'd love to talk. Learn more on our homepage.

Recognized names mentioned in this document

Overton only tracks names from certain institutions. Names must have been cited in at least one policy document and their corresponding affiliation has to be found nearby - you can find more details on the help page.

Everything cited by this document (explore the cited scholarly articles) (explore the cited policy documents)

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Elsevier BV)
Howard Balshem et al. 2011
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64 (2011) 401e406 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
0895-4356/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
Introduction In the two previous articles in this series, we introduced GRADE; provided an overview of the GRADE process for developing recommendations and the final outputs of that process, the evidence profile, and Summary of Findings table; and described the process for framing questions and identifying outcomes [1,2].
On page 1
The optimal application of GRADE requires systematic reviews of the impact of alternative management approaches on all patient-important outcomes [1].
On page 3
References [1] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Brozek J, Norris S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1.
On page 5
[1] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Brozek J, Norris S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. IntroductiondGRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383e94 [in this issue].
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
Introduction In the two previous articles in this series, we introduced GRADE; provided an overview of the GRADE process for developing recommendations and the final outputs of that process, the evidence profile, and Summary of Findings table; and described the process for framing questions and identifying outcomes [1,2].
On page 1
As discussed in the previous article in this series that addressed the framing of the question [2], before assessing the quality of the evidence, systematic reviewers and guideline developers should identify all potential patientimportant outcomes, including benefits, harms, and costs.
On page 4
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist GE, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2.
On page 5
[2] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist GE, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:395e400 [in this issue].
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7.
On page 6
[6] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidenced inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. In press.
JAMA (American Medical Association (AMA))
Eugene S. Hurwitz 1987
Hurwitz ES, Barrett MJ, Bregman D, Gunn WJ, Pinsky P, Schonberger LB, et al. Public health service study of Reye’s syndrome and medications: report of the main study.
On page 6
[11] Hurwitz ES, Barrett MJ, Bregman D, Gunn WJ, Pinsky P, Schonberger LB, et al. Public health service study of Reye’s syndrome and medications: report of the main study. JAMA 1987;257: 1905e11.
New England Journal of Medicine (New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS))
Clive Kearon et al. 1999
Kearon C, Gent M, Hirsh J, Weitz J, Kovacs MJ, Anderson DR, et al. A comparison of three months of anticoagulation with extended anticoagulation for a first episode of idiopathic venous thromboembolism.
On page 6
[12] Kearon C, Gent M, Hirsh J, Weitz J, Kovacs MJ, Anderson DR, et al. A comparison of three months of anticoagulation with extended anticoagulation for a first episode of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 1999;340:901.
Campbell IA, Bentley DP, Prescott RJ, Routledge PA, Shetty HGM, Williamson IJ.
On page 6
[13] Campbell IA, Bentley DP, Prescott RJ, Routledge PA, Shetty HGM, Williamson IJ. Anticoagulation for three versus six months in patients with deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, or both: randomised trial. BMJ 2007;334:674.
Table 2 presents what GRADE means by each of these four categories and contrasts their current definition with the previous definition [16], which focused on the implications of the levels of evidence for future research (the lower the quality, the more likely further research would change our confidence in the estimates, and the estimates themselves).
On page 4
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
On page 6
[16] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924e6.