Table 2.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE 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, or RCTs with a low risk of bias 1− Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a high risk of bias 2++ High quality systematic reviews of case control or cohort studies, or High quality case control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding or bias and a high probability that the relationship is causal 2+ Well conducted case control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding or bias and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal 2− Case control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding or bias and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal 3 Non-analytic studies, e.g. case reports, case series 4 Expert opinion |
GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION Note: The grade of recommendation relates to the strength of the evidence on which the recommendation is based. It does not reflect the clinical importance of the recommendation. |
A At least one meta-analysis, systematic review, or RCT rated as
1++, and directly applicable to the target population;
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 Recommended best practice based on the clinical experience of the guideline development group |