Cargando…

UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey

INTRODUCTION: UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agoritsas, Thomas, Merglen, Arnaud, Heen, Anja Fog, Kristiansen, Annette, Neumann, Ignacio, Brito, Juan P, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Alexander, Paul E, Rind, David M, Vandvik, Per O, Guyatt, Gordon H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29150475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018593
_version_ 1783281434774994944
author Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Heen, Anja Fog
Kristiansen, Annette
Neumann, Ignacio
Brito, Juan P
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Alexander, Paul E
Rind, David M
Vandvik, Per O
Guyatt, Gordon H
author_facet Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Heen, Anja Fog
Kristiansen, Annette
Neumann, Ignacio
Brito, Juan P
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Alexander, Paul E
Rind, David M
Vandvik, Per O
Guyatt, Gordon H
author_sort Agoritsas, Thomas
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations. DESIGN: Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate. METHODS: We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate. RESULTS: UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation. CONCLUSION: The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations—in UpToDate and elsewhere—when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5701989
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57019892017-11-27 UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey Agoritsas, Thomas Merglen, Arnaud Heen, Anja Fog Kristiansen, Annette Neumann, Ignacio Brito, Juan P Brignardello-Petersen, Romina Alexander, Paul E Rind, David M Vandvik, Per O Guyatt, Gordon H BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice INTRODUCTION: UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations. DESIGN: Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate. METHODS: We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate. RESULTS: UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation. CONCLUSION: The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations—in UpToDate and elsewhere—when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5701989/ /pubmed/29150475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018593 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Heen, Anja Fog
Kristiansen, Annette
Neumann, Ignacio
Brito, Juan P
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Alexander, Paul E
Rind, David M
Vandvik, Per O
Guyatt, Gordon H
UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
title UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
title_full UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
title_fullStr UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
title_full_unstemmed UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
title_short UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
title_sort uptodate adherence to grade criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29150475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018593
work_keys_str_mv AT agoritsasthomas uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT merglenarnaud uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT heenanjafog uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT kristiansenannette uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT neumannignacio uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT britojuanp uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT brignardellopetersenromina uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT alexanderpaule uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT rinddavidm uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT vandvikpero uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey
AT guyattgordonh uptodateadherencetogradecriteriaforstrongrecommendationsananalyticalsurvey