Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

© 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues

Chernobyl Accident : Assessing the Data

Most common breast cancer susceptibility variants have been identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of predominantly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease. We conducted a GWAS using 21,468 ER-negative cases and 100,594 controls combined with 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer), all of European origin. We identified independent associations at P < 5 × 10(-8) with ten variants at nine new loci. At P < 0.05, we replicated associations with 10 of 11 variants previously reported in ER-negative disease or BRCA1 mutation carrier GWAS and observed consistent associations with ER-negative disease for 105 susceptibility variants identified by other studies. These 125 variants explain approximately 16% of the familial risk of this breast cancer subtype. There was high genetic correlation (0.72) between risk of ER-negative breast cancer and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings may lead to improved risk prediction and inform further fine-mapping and functional work to better understand the biological basis of ER-negative breast cancer

Identification of ten variants associated with risk of estrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer

Most common breast cancer susceptibility variants have been identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of predominantly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease(1). We conducted a GWAS using 21,468 ER-negative cases and 100,594 controls combined with 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer), all of European origin. We identified independent associations at P &amp;lt; 5 x 10(-8) with ten variants at nine new loci. At P &amp;lt; 0.05, we replicated associations with 10 of 11 variants previously reported in ER-negative disease or BRCA1 mutation carrier GWAS and observed consistent associations with ER-negative disease for 105 susceptibility variants identified by other studies. These 125 variants explain approximately 16% of the familial risk of this breast cancer subtype. There was high genetic correlation (0.72) between risk of ER-negative breast cancer and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings may lead to improved risk prediction and inform further fine-mapping and functional work to better understand the biological basis of ER-negative breast cancer