Table 4.
Definition | |
---|---|
Levels of evidence | |
1 |
1++ high-quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias 1+ well-conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a low risk of bias 1- Meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a high risk of bias |
2 |
2++ high-quality systematic reviews of case-control or cohort or studies 2+ high-quality case-control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a high probability that the relationship is casual 2- well-conducted case control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a moderate probability that the relationship is casual |
3 | non-analytic studies, e.g. case reports, case series |
4 | expert opinion |
Grades of recommendation | |
A | at least one meta-analysis, systematic review, or RCT rated as 1++, and directly applicable to the target population; or a systematic review of RCTs or a body of evidence consisting principally of studies rated as 1+, directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results |
B | a body of evidence including studies rated as 2++, directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results; or extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 1++, or 1+ |
C | a body of evidence including studies rated as 2+, directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2++ |
D | evidence level 3 or 4; or extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2+ |
Good practice points RBP recommended best practise based on the clinical experience of the guideline development group |