Schünemann Holger J, Best Dana, Vist Gunn, Oxman Andrew D
Department of Medicine, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
CMAJ. 2003 Sep 30;169(7):677-80.
The GRADE Working Group is developing and evaluating a common, sensible approach to grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in health care. In this article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using letters, numbers, symbols or words to represent grades of evidence and recommendations. Using multiple strategies, we searched for comparative studies of alternative ways of representing ordered categories in any context. In addition, we contacted experts and reviewed theoretical work and qualitative research on how best to communicate grades of any kind quickly and clearly. We were unable to identify health care research that addressed, either directly or indirectly, the best way to present grades of evidence and recommendations. We found examples of symbols used by government, commercial and consumer organizations to communicate quality of evidence or strength of recommendations, but no comparative studies. Although a number of grading systems are used in health care and other fields, there is little or no evidence of how well various presentations are understood. Before promoting the use of specific symbols, numbers, letters or words, the extent to which the intended message is comprehended should be evaluated.
GRADE工作组正在制定和评估一种通用、合理的方法,用于对医疗保健中证据的质量和推荐的强度进行分级。在本文中,我们讨论了使用字母、数字、符号或文字来表示证据等级和推荐等级的优缺点。我们运用多种策略,搜索了在任何背景下表示有序类别的替代方法的比较研究。此外,我们联系了专家,并查阅了关于如何以最佳方式快速、清晰地传达各类等级的理论著作和定性研究。我们未能找到直接或间接探讨呈现证据等级和推荐等级的最佳方式的医疗保健研究。我们发现了政府、商业和消费者组织用于传达证据质量或推荐强度的符号示例,但没有比较研究。尽管医疗保健和其他领域使用了多种分级系统,但几乎没有证据表明各种呈现方式的易懂程度如何。在推广使用特定的符号、数字、字母或文字之前,应评估预期信息的被理解程度。