• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[医疗保健中的证据综合评估:GRADE 系统]

[Integrative assessment of evidence in healthcare: the GRADE system].

作者信息

Schünemann Holger

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

出版信息

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103(5):261-8. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.05.007.

DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2009.05.007
PMID:19645339
Abstract

Decisions are a double-edged sword: they always and inevitably come with positive and negative consequences. Decisions in healthcare--from a systems level to the individual patient--are not different. This approach acknowledges that for all recommendations and decisions all the important consequences need to be considered. Along these lines, one must evaluate the certainty that estimates of effects and decisions are likely to be correct. Thus, as institutions, professional societies, organisations and individuals, we should follow approaches focusing on systematic and integrative assessment of available best evidence. Longstanding and broad experience with the development of recommendations, including systematically developed guidelines, led a group of methodologists, health officers, clinicians and guideline developers to form the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. The GRADE approach differentiates the assessment of the quality of evidence from the strength of a recommendation in healthcare. For a step-by-step evaluation of the quality of evidence, one must consider all patient relevant endpoints. It is common that many relevant and acceptable studies provide evidence for single outcomes. Therefore, integrating summaries and assessments beyond meta-analyses are required. The explicit and transparent description of the single steps in these assessments and the consideration of all currently known criteria for the assessment of the quality of evidence are among the most important advantages and innovations of the GRADE system and are described here briefly. The overall quality of evidence of all outcomes that are critical for decision-making are summarized on the basis of the lowest quality of evidence. If, for example, the evidence for six of seven critical outcomes is of low quality while moderate quality evidence is available for the other critical outcome, the overall quality of evidence is considered low to avoid a false sense of certainty with the assessment of the evidence for a given topic. A recommendation according to GRADE also requires a considerate judgement about the magnitude of the expected balance of benefits and downsides for the important outcomes, the relative values and preferences associated with these outcomes and considerations about the required resources. The international collaboration and acceptance by many organisations is an indicator of GRADE's innovative nature and advances in the assessment of evidence and development of recommendations in the context of healthcare.

摘要

决策是一把双刃剑

它们总是不可避免地伴随着积极和消极的后果。医疗保健领域的决策——从系统层面到个体患者层面——并无不同。这种方法承认,对于所有建议和决策,都需要考虑所有重要的后果。按照这些思路,人们必须评估效应估计和决策可能正确的确定性。因此,作为机构、专业协会、组织和个人,我们应该遵循侧重于对现有最佳证据进行系统和综合评估的方法。在制定建议(包括系统制定的指南)方面有着长期而广泛的经验,一群方法学家、卫生官员、临床医生和指南制定者组成了推荐分级评估、制定与评价(GRADE)工作组。GRADE方法区分了医疗保健中证据质量评估与推荐强度。对于证据质量的逐步评估,必须考虑所有与患者相关的终点。许多相关且可接受的研究为单一结果提供证据是很常见的。因此,需要整合超越荟萃分析的总结和评估。这些评估中单个步骤的明确和透明描述以及对所有当前已知证据质量评估标准的考虑是GRADE系统最重要的优势和创新之一,在此简要描述。对决策至关重要的所有结果的证据总体质量是根据最低质量的证据进行总结的。例如,如果七个关键结果中有六个的证据质量低,而另一个关键结果有中等质量的证据,那么证据的总体质量被认为是低质量,以避免在评估给定主题的证据时产生错误的确信感。根据GRADE做出的推荐还需要对重要结果预期的利弊平衡幅度、与这些结果相关的相对价值和偏好以及对所需资源的考虑进行周全的判断。国际合作以及许多组织的认可表明了GRADE在医疗保健背景下证据评估和推荐制定方面的创新性和进步。

相似文献

1
[Integrative assessment of evidence in healthcare: the GRADE system].[医疗保健中的证据综合评估:GRADE 系统]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103(5):261-8. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.05.007.
2
[GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice].[GRADE:从证据分级到制定推荐意见。系统描述及关于临床研究结果向临床实践可转移性的建议]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103(6):391-400. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.05.023.
3
Interpreting GRADE's levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision?解读GRADE证据的确定性水平或质量:面向统计学家的GRADE,是考虑综述信息规模还是较少强调不精确性?
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:6-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.018. Epub 2016 Apr 6.
4
[The GRADE System. An international approach to standardize the graduation of evidence and recommendations in guidelines].[GRADE系统。一种标准化指南中证据分级和推荐建议的国际方法]
Internist (Berl). 2008 Jun;49(6):673-80. doi: 10.1007/s00108-008-2141-9.
5
Synthesis, grading, and presentation of evidence in guidelines: article 7 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.指南中证据的综合、分级和呈现:COPD 指南制定中整合和协调工作的第 7 条。美国胸科学会/欧洲呼吸学会工作组报告。
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):256-61. doi: 10.1513/pats.201208-060ST.
6
Moving from evidence to developing recommendations in guidelines: article 11 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.从证据到指南推荐意见的制定:COPD 指南制定中整合和协调工作的第 11 条。美国胸科学会/欧洲呼吸学会官方工作组报告。
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):282-92. doi: 10.1513/pats.201208-064ST.
7
[The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations].[GRADE系统:证据质量评估及推荐强度的评估方式变革]
Rev Med Chil. 2014 May;142(5):630-5. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872014000500012.
8
[Guidelines are made more transparent with the GRADE method: considerations for recommendations are explicit in the new method].采用GRADE方法使指南更加透明:新方法中对推荐意见的考量是明确的。
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(25):A4379.
9
Going from evidence to recommendations: Can GRADE get us there?从证据到推荐意见:GRADE 能做到吗?
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Oct;24(5):1232-1239. doi: 10.1111/jep.12857. Epub 2018 Jan 5.
10
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations.临床实践指南质量评估和推荐强度分级(第 3 部分,共 3 部分)。推荐意见制定的 GRADE 方法。
Allergy. 2011 May;66(5):588-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x. Epub 2011 Jan 17.

引用本文的文献

1
[Pharmacotherapy of chronic neuropathic pain].[慢性神经性疼痛的药物治疗]
Internist (Berl). 2019 Jul;60(7):711-723. doi: 10.1007/s00108-019-0627-2.
2
Mechanical Ventilation and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygena tion in Acute Respiratory Insufficiency.急性呼吸功能不全的机械通气和体外膜肺氧合。
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Dec 14;115(50):840-847. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0840.
3
The Pharmacological Therapy of Chronic Neuropathic Pain.慢性神经性疼痛的药物治疗
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Sep 16;113(37):616-625. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0616.
4
Does the pharmaceutical industry influence guidelines?: two examples from Germany.制药业是否影响了指南?:来自德国的两个例子。
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013 Sep;110(35-36):575-83. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0575. Epub 2013 Sep 2.