Document Detail


A critical appraisal of standard guidelines for grading levels of evidence.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20801972     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Process    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Over the past 30 years, a general consensus has emerged within the medical community regarding the essential role served by grading guidelines in evaluating the quality of evidence produced by a medical research study. Specifically, consensus exists regarding the hierarchy of evidence, where randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the ''gold standard'' followed by nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) and uncontrolled trials. As guidelines have become more sophisticated, processes have been developed for downgrading poorly conducted studies and upgrading strong studies. Lists of threats to internal validity have been disseminated, thereby assisting reviewers in grading studies. However, despite these many accomplishments, considerable issues remain unresolved with respect to how to evaluate the strength of evidence produced by flawed RCTs versus well-conducted non-RCTs. The purpose of this article is to evaluate existing evidence-based grading guidelines and to offer suggestions for how such guidelines may be improved.
Authors:
P Cristian Gugiu; Mihaiela Ristei Gugiu
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Evaluation & the health professions     Volume:  33     ISSN:  1552-3918     ISO Abbreviation:  Eval Health Prof     Publication Date:  2010 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-08-30     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7805992     Medline TA:  Eval Health Prof     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  233-55     Citation Subset:  H; T    
Affiliation:
Western Michigan University, MI, USA. crisgugiu@yahoo.com
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Response to comment. Broken promises and the bad patient.
Next Document:  Use of evidence-based therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events among older people.