Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance
Abstract: An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.
Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.
Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS
- Standort
-
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
- Umfang
-
Online-Ressource
- Sprache
-
Englisch
- Anmerkungen
-
Evidence-based medicine. - 28, 3 (2023) , 189-196, ISSN: 1473-6810
- Ereignis
-
Veröffentlichung
- (wo)
-
Freiburg
- (wer)
-
Universität
- (wann)
-
2022
- Urheber
- DOI
-
10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111962
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-2265891
- Rechteinformation
-
Open Access; Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
- Letzte Aktualisierung
-
25.03.2025, 13:54 MEZ
Datenpartner
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Beteiligte
- Dewidar, Omar
- Meerpohl, Jörg J.
- Schünemann, Holger J.
- Universität
Entstanden
- 2022
Ähnliche Objekte (12)
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale
Willingness to participate in, support or carry out scientific studies for benefit assessment of available medical interventions: a stakeholder survey
Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale
Willingness to participate in, support or carry out scientific studies for benefit assessment of available medical interventions: a stakeholder survey
Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale
Willingness to participate in, support or carry out scientific studies for benefit assessment of available medical interventions: a stakeholder survey
Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence