Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Urology
Published in: World Journal of Urology 3/2011

01-06-2011 | Topic Paper

Rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using GRADE

Authors: Steven E. Canfield, Philipp Dahm

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Urologists can benefit from a standardized system for guideline development and presentation. This article introduces the GRADE system and explains how it may be useful for Urologic physicians, in their practice and in their healthcare systems.

Methods

The GRADE system is reviewed. Specific aspects of how GRADE rates the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations are explored.

Results

GRADE can provide explicit and structured guidance, which separates the quality of evidence from the strength of recommendations. This information can be used by consumers of guidelines, including patients, physicians, and policy makers.

Conclusions

Urologists can benefit from a more transparent and rigorous framework when formulating recommendations. GRADE is an emergent proposal with broader implications for healthcare policy as well.
Literature
1.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2008) SIGN 50: a guideline developer’s handbook. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Guideline no. 50
2.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2004) Management of urinary incontinence in primary care. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Guideline no. 79
3.
Winn RJ, McClure JS (2003) The NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines™) NCCN Senior Vice President, Clinical Information & Publications
4.
NCCN Guidelines Prostate Cancer (2010) National comprehensive cancer network, Version 1.2011
5.
6.
Thuroff JW, Abrams P, Andersson KE et al (2011) EAU guidelines on urinary incontinence. European urol 59(3):387–400
7.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj 336:924PubMedCrossRef
8.
Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J et al (2008) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. Bmj 336:1106PubMedCrossRef
9.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al (2008) What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? Bmj 336:995PubMedCrossRef
10.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al (2008) Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. Bmj 336:1170PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
13.
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1988) Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ 138:697PubMed
14.
Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F et al (2009) Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence? Eur Urol 56:455PubMedCrossRef
15.
Hollingsworth JM, Zhang Y, Krein SL et al (2010) Understanding the variation in treatment intensity among patients with early stage bladder cancer. Cancer 116:3587PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wolf JS Jr, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR et al (2008) Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 179:1379PubMedCrossRef
17.
Feldman DR, Bosl GJ, Sheinfeld J et al (2008) Medical treatment of advanced testicular cancer. JAMA 299:672PubMedCrossRef
18.
Meek PD, Evang SD, Tadrous M et al (2011) Overactive bladder drugs and constipation: a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Dig Dis Sci 56(1):7–18
19.
Canfield SE, Dahm P (2010) Evidence-based urology in practice: incorporating patient values in evidence-based clinical decision making. BJU Int 105:4PubMedCrossRef
20.
Herrmann TR, Merseburger AS, Burchardt M (2009) Considerations on prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment decisions. World J Urol 27:579PubMedCrossRef
21.
Hunter KF, Glazener CM, Moore KN (2007) Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD001843
22.
Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND et al (2010) Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 363:411PubMedCrossRef
23.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F et al (2009) Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence? Eur Urol 56:455PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using GRADE
Authors
Steven E. Canfield
Philipp Dahm
Publication date
01-06-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0667-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

World Journal of Urology 3/2011 Go to the issue

Original Article

A novel approach for the surgical management of Peyronie’s disease using an acellular, human dermis tissue graft: preliminary results

Topic Paper

Comparative effectiveness research in urology

Original Article

Tubulocystic renal carcinoma: a clinical perspective

editorial

Evidence-based medicine in urology

Topic Paper

Clinical practice guidelines to inform evidence-based clinical practice

Original Article

The role of annexins I, II and IV in tumor development, progression and metastasis of human penile squamous cell carcinomas