Table 2 |
|
|
Criteria for recommendation grading |
|
| Ottawa Panel [11] |
|
| A |
Evidence from one or more randomized controlled trials of a statistically significant,
clinically important benefit (>15%) |
| B |
Statistically significant, clinically important benefit (>15%) if the evidence is
from observational studies or controlled clinical trials |
| C+ |
Clinical importance (>15%) but no statistical significance |
| C |
No clinically important difference and no statistical significance |
| D |
Evidence from one or more randomized controlled trials of a statistically significant
benefit favouring the control group |
| Canadian Consensus Conference [8] and European League Against Rheumatism [6] |
|
| A |
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial or at least one randomized controlled
trial |
| B |
At least one controlled study without randomization or at least one quasi-experimental
study |
| C |
Descriptive studies, such as comparative, correlation or case–control studies |
| D |
Expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities |
| American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [10] |
|
| A |
Meta-analysis of multiple, well-designed controlled studies; or high-power randomized,
controlled clinical trial; or consistent findings from multiple well-designed experimental
studies; or low-power randomized, controlled clinical trials; or nonexperimental studies
such as nonrandomized, controlled single-group, pre–post, cohort, time, or matched
case–control series; or nonexperimental studies, such as comparative and correlational
descriptive and case studies |
| B |
Generally consistent findings from well-designed experimental studies; or low-power
randomized, controlled clinical trials; or nonexperimental studies such as nonrandomized,
controlled single-group, pre–post, cohort, time, or matched case–control series; or
nonexperimental studies, such as comparative and correlational descriptive and case
studies |
| C |
Inconsistent findings from well-designed experimental studies; or low-power randomized,
controlled clinical trials; or nonexperimental studies such as nonrandomized, controlled
single-group, pre–post, cohort, time, or matched case–control series; or nonexperimental
studies, such as comparative and correlational descriptive and case studies |
| D |
Little or no systematic empirical evidence |
| Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement [9] |
|
| 1 |
Strong design study results that are clinically important and consistent. The results
are free of any significant doubts about generalizability, bias, and flaws in research
design. Studies with negative results have sufficiently large samples to have adequate
statistical power |
| 2 |
Strong design study results that are inconsistent or with minor doubts about generalizability,
bias, flaws in research design, or adequacy of sample size. Alternatively, evidence
consists solely of consistent results from weaker designs |
| 3 |
Strong design study results that are substantially inconsistent or with serious doubts
about generalizability, bias, flaws in research design, or adequacy of sample size.
Alternatively, evidence consists solely of limited results from weaker designs |
|
|
|
|
Poitras et al. Arthritis Research & Therapy 2007 9:R126 doi:10.1186/ar2339 |
|
