...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice >The evolution of GRADE GRADE (part 3): A framework built on science or faith?
【24h】

The evolution of GRADE GRADE (part 3): A framework built on science or faith?

机译:等级级别的演变(第3部分):建立在科学或信仰上的框架?

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 undergone several modifications since it was first presented as a method for developing clinical practice recommendations. In the previous two articles of this series, we showed that absent, in the first three versions of GRADE, is a justification (theoretical and/or empirical) for why the presented criteria for determining the quality of evidence and the components for determining the strength of a recommendation were included (and others not included) in the framework. Furthermore, it was often not clear how to operationalize and integrate the criteria/components when using the framework. In part 3 of this series, we examine the literature since version 3 to see if the GRADE working group has provided an overall justification scheme for GRADE or clear instruction on how to operationalize and integrate the criteria/components in the framework. Methods Narrative review. Results GRADE has undergone further modification since the last version was presented. In the recent literature, we see additional shifts in terminology (eg, “quality of evidence” is now “certainty of evidence”), clarification on the construct of certainty of evidence, continued emphasis on “transparency” and new emphasis on “trustworthiness,” the addition of health equity as a component for determining strength of a recommendation, and the development of the Evidence to Decision frameworks. However, these modifications have done little to improve the justification scheme that sustains GRADE or clarify how to operationalize the criteria/components. Conclusions If we desire that our clinical recommendations be based on scientific teaching rather than faith‐based preaching, then the GRADE framework should be justified theoretically and/or empirically. Until such time that the working group provides a theoretical justification that the use of the GRADE framework should produce valid recommendations, and/or empirical evidence to support that it does, enthusiasm for the framework should be tempered.
机译:摘要理由,目标和目标建议,评估,发展和评估等级经历了几种修改,因为它首先被呈现为开发临床实践建议的方法。在本系列的两篇文章中,我们表明,在前三个版本的年级,是为什么确定证据质量的标准和确定强度的组件的标准的理由(理论和/或经验)在框架中包含(以及其他不包括的其他建议)。此外,通常不清楚如何在使用框架时运营和集成标准/组件。在本系列的第3部分中,我们检查了文献3,自版本3以查看年级工作组是否为如何在框架中运营和集成框架中的标准/组件提供了成绩或明确指令的整体理由方案。方法叙事审查。结果成绩在上次提出以来,在上次版本以来,级别经历了进一步的修改。在最近的文献中,我们看到术语中的额外变化(例如,“证据质量”现在“证据肯定”),澄清证据的肯定的构建,持续强调“透明度”和新的重点是“可靠性”, “增加健康股权作为确定建议实力的组成部分,以及向决策框架的证据的发展。但是,这些修改几乎没有改善维持等级或澄清如何运行标准/组件的理由方案。结论如果我们希望我们的临床推荐基于科学教学而不是基于信仰的讲道,那么大学框架应理论上和/或经验统一。直到工作组提供了理论上的理由,即使用等级框架的使用应该产生有效的建议,和/或经验证据支持它所做的,对框架的热情应该是锻炼。

著录项

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