Brief summary of the GRADE framework Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD Chair and Professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Professor of Medicine.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Katrina Abuabara, MD, MA1 Esther E Freeman MD, PhD2;
Advertisements

Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for.
Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD From Evidence to EMS Practice: Building the National Model Washington, September 4,
A short introduction on
The Science of Guidelines The 7th ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence-Based Guidelines Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD Italian.
鄭如雅 Answering Clinical Questions at the Point of Care.
August , 2012 GUIDELINE AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WORKSHOP Dr. Elie Akl Dr. Holger Schünemann Dr. Ruth Kalda Dr. Alar Irs.
Critically Evaluating the Evidence: Tools for Appraisal Elizabeth A. Crabtree, MPH, PhD (c) Director of Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Management Assistant.
Summarising findings about the likely impacts of options Judgements about the quality of evidence Preparing summary of findings tables Plain language summaries.
Estimation and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare.
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Methodology.
Clinical Policy / Practice Guideline Development Andy Jagoda, MD, FACEP Professor of Emergency Medicine Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York, New York.
Answering Clinical Questions at the Point of Care 鄭如雅 Crystal Cheng Tel : Mobile :
Chapter 7. Getting Closer: Grading the Literature and Evaluating the Strength of the Evidence.
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Answering Clinical Questions at the Point of Care 劉嫻秋 Rachel Liu Tel : Mobile :
Answering Clinical Questions at the Point of Care 鄭如雅
The GRADE approach: an introductory workshop
Illustrating the GRADE Methodology: The Cather Associated-UTI Case Study TEACH Level II Workshop 5 NYAM August 9 th, 2013 Craig A Umscheid, MD, MSCE, FACP.
How GRADE could help to implement the evidence
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group
AHRQ Annual Meeting 2009: "Research to Reform: Achieving Health System Change" September 14, 2009 Yngve Falck-Ytter, M.D. Case Western Reserve University,
Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD Chair and Professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Professor of Medicine Michael Gent Chair in Healthcare.
Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD Chair, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Michael Gent Chair in Healthcare Research Professor of Clinical Epidemiology,
AHRQ Annual Meeting 2009: "Research to Reform: Achieving Health System Change" September 14, 2009 Yngve Falck-Ytter, M.D. Case Western Reserve University,
AHRQ Annual Meeting 2010: “Better Care, Better Health: Delivering on Quality for All Americans" September 28, 2010 Yngve Falck-Ytter, M.D. Associate Professor.
Guideline development through GRADE August 28, 2011 GIN 2011, Seoul, Korea.
The Audit Process Tahera Chaudry March Clinical audit A quality improvement process that seeks to improve patient care and outcomes through systematic.
A/Prof Brian Cox Cancer Epidemiologist Dunedin. Research Associate Professor Brian Cox Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit Department of Preventive and.
Research Techniques Made Simple: Evaluating the Strength of Clinical Recommendations in the Medical Literature: GRADE, SORT, and AGREE Mayra Buainain de.
Grading Strength of Evidence Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
The New York Academy of Medicine Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Healthcare New York, August 10, 2011 Yngve Falck-Ytter, MD, AGAF for.
Plan GRADE backgroundGRADE background confidence in estimates (quality of evidence)confidence in estimates (quality of evidence) evidence profilesevidence.
Answering Clinical Questions at the Point of Care 劉嫻秋 Rachel Liu Tel : Mobile :
Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review What do we mean by confidence in a systematic review and in an estimate of effect? How should.
Answering Clinical Questions at the Point of Care 劉嫻秋 Rachel Liu Tel : Mobile :
BMH CLINICAL GUIDELINES IN EUROPE. OUTLINE Background to the project Objectives The AGREE Instrument: validation process and results Outcomes.
Evidence-based shared decision-making (EB SDM) A neglected research topic David L. Hahn, M.D., M.S. (Epidemiology) Dept. Family Practice, Dean Medical.
Wipanee Phupakdi, MD September 15, Overview  Define EBM  Learn steps in EBM process  Identify parts of a well-built clinical question  Discuss.
Introduction to Healthcare and Public Health in the US The Evolution and Reform of Healthcare in the US Lecture b This material (Comp1_Unit9b) was developed.
Levels of evidence and Interpretation of a systematic review
WHO GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EVIDENCE-BASED VACCINE RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS August 2011.
Implementing the GRADE Method in Guideline Development: Real- World Experiences Contemplation Stage: To GRADE or Not to GRADE? Sheila A. Agyeman, MHA Director.
Anne Matthews, Health & Society, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, DCU The paradox of ‘low quality evidence; strong recommendation’: An analysis of.
Finding, Evaluating, and Presenting Evidence Sharon E. Lock, PhD, ARNP NUR 603 Spring, 2001.
Evidence Based Orthopaedics- The Best Practice Standards
Component 1: Introduction to Health Care and Public Health in the U.S. 1.9: Unit 9: The evolution and reform of healthcare in the US 1.9a: Evidence Based.
The New York Academy of Medicine Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Healthcare New York, August 8, 2012 Yngve Falck-Ytter, MD, AGAF for the.
GDG Meeting Wednesday November 9, :30 – 11:30 am.
Considerations in grading a recommendation methodological quality of evidencemethodological quality of evidence likelihood of biaslikelihood of bias trade-off.
H ⊕ lger Schünemann, MD, PhD Professor and Chair, Dept. of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Professor of Medicine Michael Gent Chair in Healthcare.
GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation British Association of Dermatologists April 2014.
Clinical Practice Guidelines: Can we fix Babel? Eddy Lang Department Chair, Emergency Alberta Health Services Associate Professor University of Calgary.
Answering Clinical Questions at the Point of Care 鄭如雅
Ghada Aboheimed, Msc. Review the principles of an evidence based approach to clinical practice. Appreciate the value of EBM Describe the 5 steps of evidence.
Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines Institute of Medicine.
From evidence to Policy: Paediatric guideline development in Kenya Mercy Mulaku.
Approach to guideline development
Knowledge Translation to Improve the Health of Vulnerable Populations
Why this talk? you will be seeing a lot of GRADE
Developing a guideline
Conflicts of interest Major role in development of GRADE
Overview of the GRADE approach – selected slides
'Summary of findings' tables in network meta-analysis (NMA)
WHO Guideline development
The publication gap in years for the cumulative percent of cited research papers in the ESMO and the UK overall cancer clinical guidelines, with the difference.
Flow chart of the used methodology adapted from Moher et al
Evidence-Based Public Health
Presentation transcript:

Brief summary of the GRADE framework Holger Schünemann, MD, PhD Chair and Professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Professor of Medicine Michael Gent Chair in Healthcare Research McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada AHRQ, Washington September 19, 2011

Disclosure Co-chair GRADE Working Group Work with various guideline groups using GRADE No direct personal for profit payments for work related to the topic area American College of Physicians (ACP) Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee WHO: Expert Advisory Panel on Clinical Practice Guidelines and Clinical Research Methods and Ethics & chair of various guideline panels

Healthcare problem recommendation “Healthy people” “Herd immunity” “Long term perspective” “Few RCTs” “Lots of other things”

Simple hierarchies are (too) simplistic STUDY DESIGN Randomized Controlled Trials Cohort Studies and Case Control Studies Case Reports and Case Series, Non-systematic observations Expert Opinion BIAS Expert Opinion Schünemann & Bone, 2003

GRADE: recommendations & quality of (a body of)evidence Clear separation, but judgments required: 1) Recommendation: 2 grades – conditional (aka weak) or strong (for or against an action)? – Balance of benefits and downsides, values and preferences, resource use and quality of evidence 2) 4 categories of quality of evidence:  (High),   (Moderate),   (Low),   (Very low)? – methodological quality of evidence – likelihood of bias related to recommendation – by outcome and across outcomes *

Evidence based healthcare decisions Evidence about effects Population/societal values and preferences State and circumstances Expertise Haynes et al. 2002

GRADE Quality of Evidence In the context of making recommendations: The quality of evidence reflects the extent of our confidence that the estimates of an effect are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation.

Likelihood of and confidence in an outcome

Determinants of quality RCTs  observational studies   5 factors that can lower quality 1.limitations in detailed design and execution (risk of bias criteria) 2.Inconsistency (or heterogeneity) 3.Indirectness (PICO and applicability) 4.Imprecision (number of events and confidence intervals) 5.Publication bias 3 factors can increase quality 1.large magnitude of effect 2.plausible residual bias or confounding 3.dose-response gradient

Quality assessment criteria

Interpretation of grades of evidence  /A/High: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.   /B/Moderate: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.   /C/Low: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.   /D/Very low: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Interpretation of grades of evidence /A/High: Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect.   /B/Moderate: Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.   /C/Low: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.   /D/Very low: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

Systematic review Guideline development PICOPICO Outcome Formulate question Rate importance Critical Important Critical Not important Create evidence profile with GRADEpro Summary of findings & estimate of effect for each outcome Grade overall quality of evidence across outcomes based on lowest quality of critical outcomes Randomization increases initial quality 1.Risk of bias 2.Inconsistency 3.Indirectness 4.Imprecision 5.Publication bias Grade down Grade up 1.Large effect 2.Dose response 3.Confounders Rate quality of evidence for each outcome Select outcomes Very low Low Moderate High Formulate recommendations: For or against (direction) Strong or weak/conditional (strength) By considering:  Quality of evidence  Balance benefits/harms  Values and preferences Revise if necessary by considering:  Resource use (cost) “We recommend using…” “We suggest using…” “We recommend against using…” “We suggest against using…” Outcomes across studies

GRADE Uptake  World Health Organization  Allergic Rhinitis in Asthma Guidelines (ARIA)  American Thoracic Society  American College of Physicians (ACP)  Canadian Task Force for the Preventive Services  European Respiratory Society  European Society of Thoracic Surgeons  British Medical Journal  Infectious Disease Society of America  UpToDate®  National Institutes of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)  Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN)  Cochrane Collaboration  Clinical Evidence  Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ)  Partner of GIN  Over 50 major organizations (over 250 members)