GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of
recommendations | The BMJ Skip to main content Intended for healthcare professionals Access …

Background Near-patient testing has made self-monitoring of anticoagulation with warfarin
feasible, and several trials have suggested that such monitoring might be equal to or better …

Summary of Findings (SoF) tables present, for each of the seven (or fewer) most important
outcomes, the following: the number of studies and number of participants; the confidence in …

GRADE suggests that examination of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provides the optimal
primary approach to decisions regarding imprecision. For practice guidelines, rating down …

This article deals with inconsistency of relative (rather than absolute) treatment effects in
binary/dichotomous outcomes. A body of evidence is not rated up in quality if studies yield …

Direct evidence comes from research that directly compares the interventions in which we
are interested when applied to the populations in which we are interested and measures …

The most common reason for rating up the quality of evidence is a large effect. GRADE
suggests considering rating up quality of evidence one level when methodologically …

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational
studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence …

Background There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in
patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin …

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational
studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is …