1A: Strong recommendation, high-quality evidence |
Benefits clearly outweigh the risks 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 the risks 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 the risks 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 |