Jerarquización de la evidencia: Niveles de evidencia y grados de recomendación de uso actual

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Existen múltiples propuestas y clasificaciones que jerarquizan la evidencia, que pueden confundir a quienes se dedican a generar la evidencia tanto en evaluaciones de tecnología sanitaria, elaboración de guías clínicas, etc. El objetivo de este artículo es actualizar la información y describir las clasificaciones más utilizadas para valorar la evidencia en el ámbito de la salud, analizando sus principales diferencias y aplicaciones para que el usuario pueda elegir la que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades y tomar de este modo decisiones sanitarias basando su práctica en la mejor evidencia disponible. Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura en las bases de datos PubMed y MEDLINE y en los buscadores Google, Yahoo e Ixquick. Se obtuvo una gran cantidad de información referente a niveles de evidencia y grados de recomendación, para finalmente resumir la información de 11 de las propuestas más utilizadas en la actualidad (CTFPHC, Sackett, USPSTF, CEBM, GRADE, SIGN, NICE, NHMRC, PCCRP, ADA y ACCF/AHA), entre las que destaca la del GRADE WORKING GROUP, incorporada por alrededor de 90 organizaciones nacionales e internacionales, tales como la World Health Organization, The Cochrane Library, American College of Physicians, American Thoracic Society, UpToDate, etc. y a nivel local por el Ministerio de Salud, para generar guías de práctica clínica.

Translated abstract

There are multiple proposals and classifications that hierarchize evidence, which may confuse those who are dedicated to generate it both in health technology assessments, as for the development of clinical guidelines, etc. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the most commonly used classifications of levels of evidence and grades of recommendation, analyzing their main differences and applications so that the user can choose the one that better suits your needs and take this health decisions basing their practice on the best available evidence. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and MEDLINE databases and in Google, Yahoo and Ixquick search engines. A wealth of information concerning levels of evidence and degrees recommendation was obtained. It was summarized the information of the 11 proposals more currently used (CTFPHC, Sackett, USPSTF, CEBM, GRADE, SIGN, NICE, NHMRC, PCCRP, ADA y ACCF/AHA), between which it emphasizes the GRADE WORKING GROUP, incorporated by around 90 national and international organizations such as the World Health Organization, The Cochrane Library, American College of Physicians, American Thoracic Society, UpToDate, etc.; and locally by the Ministry of Health to create clinical practice guidelines.

Related collections

Most cited references 55

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Gunn E. Vist … (2008)

0 comments Cited 3843 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Elie A. Akl … (2011)

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.