Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb;224(2):223.e1-223.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.052. Epub 2020 Aug 21.
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, sometimes together with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, publishes guidelines utilizing the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to rate the quality of evidence and assign the strength of its recommendations. The strength of recommendations is determined by the quality of evidence and 3 other strength determinants that are defined in this system.
This study aimed to assess all recommendations by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, determine the quality of evidence supporting them, evaluate the relationship between quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and determine the extent to which the other 3 strength determinants were employed to assign recommendation strength.
All publications from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications and Guidelines website were reviewed, but only the ones with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation recommendations were analyzed. These were aggregated by their rating for quality of evidence and strength. Quality and strength were first compared across all recommendations. Subsequently, they were compared with stratification by recommendation topic and type (eg, interventions, counseling, screening, and diagnosis). References supporting each recommendation were also summarized by type (eg, randomized trial, retrospective study). The quality of evidence for each recommendation was then compared with the supporting reference types. Other characteristics that may contribute to strength were also evaluated. Finally, we compared recommendations authored jointly by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists with those by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine alone.
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine published 24 documents containing 235 recommendations assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. There were 35 (15%) recommendations supported by high-quality evidence; 34 (97%) were determined to be strong. Recommendations supported by moderate-quality (n=102) and low-quality (n=75) evidence were also rated as strong in 78% and 68% of cases, respectively. Recommendations were supported by randomized trials 8% of the time and references that summarize primary data (eg, meta-analyses, reviews, previous guidelines) 64% of the time. Recommendations with higher quality evidence ratings were more likely to be supported by references that summarize primary data (69% high-quality, 74% moderate-quality, 49% low-quality). Topics with recommendations authored jointly by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were supported by higher quality evidence than those by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine alone (high quality, 26% vs 9%, respectively).
Recommendations by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system were supported by high-quality evidence in 15% of cases. This suggests that well-designed, high-quality clinical trials remain a priority in obstetrics. Strong recommendations were often made on the basis of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation strength determinants other than quality of evidence. Increased transparency of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine's determination of strong recommendations based on strength determinants other than quality of the evidence may be useful to practicing clinicians.
母体胎儿医学学会(Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine,SFM)有时与美国妇产科医师学会(American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,ACOG)合作,使用推荐分级的评估、制定与评价(Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation,GRADE)系统发布指南,对证据质量进行评级并为其推荐强度赋值。推荐强度取决于证据质量和 GRADE 系统中定义的另外 3 个强度决定因素。
本研究旨在评估 SFM 所有经 GRADE 系统评估的推荐意见,确定支持这些推荐意见的证据质量,评估证据质量与推荐强度之间的关系,并确定其他 3 个强度决定因素在多大程度上被用于推荐强度赋值。
对母体胎儿医学学会(SFM)出版物和指南网站上的所有出版物进行了审查,但仅对采用 GRADE 系统进行评级的出版物进行了分析。这些出版物按证据质量和强度进行了汇总。首先对所有推荐意见进行质量和强度的比较。随后,根据推荐主题和类型(如干预、咨询、筛查和诊断)进行分层比较。还按类型(如随机试验、回顾性研究)对支持每个推荐意见的参考文献进行了总结。然后将每个推荐意见的证据质量与支持证据的参考类型进行比较。还评估了可能影响强度的其他特征。最后,我们比较了 SFM 与 ACOG 联合撰写的推荐意见与 SFM 单独撰写的推荐意见。
SFM 发表了 24 份文件,其中包含 235 项经 GRADE 系统评估的推荐意见。有 35 项(15%)推荐意见得到了高质量证据的支持;34 项(97%)被确定为强推荐。基于中等质量(n=102)和低质量(n=75)证据的推荐意见也分别有 78%和 68%被评为强推荐。推荐意见仅 8%的情况下基于随机试验,64%的情况下基于总结主要数据的参考文献(如荟萃分析、综述、既往指南)。证据质量评级较高的推荐意见更有可能得到总结主要数据的参考文献的支持(高质量为 69%,中等质量为 74%,低质量为 49%)。由 SFM 和 ACOG 联合撰写的推荐意见主题所依据的证据质量高于由 SFM 单独撰写的推荐意见主题(高质量分别为 26%和 9%)。
SFM 采用 GRADE 系统评估的推荐意见中,仅有 15%的情况得到了高质量证据的支持。这表明,设计良好的高质量临床试验仍然是产科领域的重点。强推荐意见通常是基于 GRADE 系统中除证据质量以外的强度决定因素做出的。母体胎儿医学学会基于除证据质量以外的强度决定因素来确定强推荐意见的过程更加透明,这可能对执业临床医生有用。