1A
|
|
|
|
Strong recommendation, high-quality evidence
|
Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa
|
RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies
|
Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation
|
1B
|
|
|
|
Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence
|
Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa
|
RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect analyses or imprecise conclusions) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies
|
Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation
|
1C
|
|
|
|
Strong recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence
|
Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa
|
Observational studies or case series
|
Strong recommendation but subject to change when higher quality evidence becomes available
|
2A
|
|
|
|
Weak recommendation, high-quality evidence
|
Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden
|
RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies
|
Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on the patient, treatment circumstances, or social values
|
2B
|
|
|
|
Weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence
|
Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden
|
RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies
|
Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on the patient, treatment circumstances, or social values
|
2C
|
|
|
|
Weak recommendation, Low-quality or very low-quality evidence |
Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burden; benefits, risk, and burden may be closely balanced |
Observational studies or case series |
Very weak recommendation; alternative treatments may be equally reasonable and merit consideration |