首页> 外文期刊>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice >The evolution of GRADE GRADE (part 1): Is there a theoretical and/or empirical basis for the GRADE GRADE framework?
【24h】

The evolution of GRADE GRADE (part 1): Is there a theoretical and/or empirical basis for the GRADE GRADE framework?

机译:等级级别的演变(第1部分):年级框架是否有理论和/或经验基础?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Abstract Rationale, aims, and objectives The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework has been presented as the best method available for developing clinical recommendations. GRADE has undergone a series of modifications. Here, we present the first part of a three article series examining the evolution of GRADE. Our purpose is to explore if (and if so, how) GRADE provides: (1) a justification (ie, theoretical and/or empirical) for why the criteria/components under consideration in the system are included (and other factors excluded), as well as why some criteria/components where added/modified in the evolution process, (2) clear and functional (ie, how to operationalize them) definitions of the included criteria/components, and (3) instruction and justification for how all the criteria/components are to be integrated when determining a recommendation. In part 1 of the series, we examine the first two versions of GRADE. Methods Narrative review. Results The justification scheme that sustains GRADE is not articulated in the first two versions of the framework. Why some criteria/components were included, and others excluded, is not justified theoretically nor is empirical support provided to suggest that the framework as presented includes that which is needed to produce valid recommendations. The first two versions of GRADE show a lack of clear instruction on how to operationalize the criteria for assessing the quality of evidence and the components for making a recommendation (including how to integrate the criteria/components at each step), which leaves substantial room for judgement on the part of the user of GRADE for guideline development. Conclusions This article revealed an absence of a justification (theoretical and/or empirical) to support important aspects of the GRADE framework, as well as a lack of clear instruction on how to operationalize the criteria and components in the framework. These issues limit one's ability to scientifically assess the appropriateness of GRADE for determining clinical recommendations.
机译:摘要理由,目标和目标推荐,评估,开发和评估等级已作为开发临床建议的最佳方法呈列。等级经历了一系列修改。在这里,我们提出了三篇文章系列的第一部分检查了等级的演变。我们的目的是探索(如果是,如果是,如何)等级提供:(1)为什么包括在系统中考虑的标准/组件的原因(即理论和/或经验)(以及排除其他因素),以及为什么在演进过程中添加/修改的一些标准/组件,(2)清除和功能(即,如何运行它们)所包含的标准/组件的定义,以及(3)指令和所有确定建议时将集成标准/组件。在该系列的第1部分中,我们检查了前两个版本的等级。方法叙事审查。结果维持等级的理由方案在框架的前两个版本中没有阐明。为什么包括一些标准/组件,并且其他被排除在一起的标准/组件无论如何都没有理解,也不是实证支持,以表明所提出的框架包括产生有效建议所需的框架。前两个版本的成绩缺乏关于如何运营用于评估证据质量的标准的明确指令以及为提出建议(包括如何整合每个步骤的标准/组件),这使得大量空间指南发展等级用户的判断。结论本文揭示了支持等级框架的重要方面的理由(理论和/或实证),以及如何在框架中运作标准和组件的明确指导。这些问题限制了一个人科学评估了确定临床建议等级适当性的能力。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者

    Mercuri Mathew; Gafni Amiram;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Medicine Division of Emergency MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamilton ON Canada;

    Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Department of Health Research Methods Evaluation;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 临床医学;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-20 09:18:31

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号