Table 1.

Applying Classification of Recommendations and Levels of Evidence.

		SIZE OF TREATMENT EFFECT
		CLASS I	CLASS IIa	CLASS IIb	CLASS III No Benelit or CLASS III Harm
		Benefit >>> Risk	Benefit > > Risk Additional studies with locused objectives needed	Benefit > Risk Additional studies with broad objectives needed; additional registry data would be helpful		Procedure/Test	Treatment
		Procedure/Treatment SHOULD be performed/ administered	IT IS REASONABLE to perform procedure/administer treatment	Procedure/Treatment MAY BE CONSIDERED	COR III: No benefit	Not Helplul	No Proven Benefit
					COR III: Harm	Excess Cost w/o Benefit or Harmful	Harmful to Patients
ESTIMATE OF CERTAINTY (PRECISION) OF TREATMENT EFFECT	LEVEL A Multiple populations evaluated* Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses	Recommendation that procedure or treatment is useful/effective ▪ Sufficient evidence Irom multiple randomized trials or meta-aralyses	▪ Recommendation in favor of Irealment or procedure being useful/effective Some conflicting evidence from multiple randomized trials or meta-analyses	▪ Recommendation’s usefulness/efficacy less well established ▪ Greater conflicting evidence from multiple randomized trials or meta-analyses	▪ Recommendation that procedure or treatment is not useful/effective and may be harmlul ▪ Sufficient evidence from multiple randomized trials or meta-analyses
	LEVEL B Limited populations evaluated* Data derived from a single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies	▪ Recommendation that procedure or treatment Is useful/effective ▪ Evidence from single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies	▪ Recommendation in favor of Irealment or procedure being useful/ellective ▪ Some conflicting evidence from single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies	▪ Recommendation’s usefulness/efficacy less well established ▪ Greater conflicting evidence from single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies	▪ Recommendation that procedure Dr treatment is not useful/effective and may be harmful ▪ Evidence from single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies
	LEVEL C Very limited papulations evaluated* Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard of care		▪ Recommendation that procedure or treatment is useful/effective ▪ Only expert opinion, case studies, or standard of care	▪ Recommendation in favor of irealment or procedure being useful/eflective ▪ Only diverging expert opinion, case studies, or standard of care	▪ Recommendation’s usefulness/efficacy less well established ▪ Only diverging expert opinion, case studies, or standard of care	Recommendation that procedure or treatment is not useful/effective and may be harmful ▪ Only expert opinion, case studies, nr standard of care
Suggested phrases for writing recommendations		should is recommended is indicated is useful/effective/beneficial	is reasonable can be useful/effective/beneficial is probably recommended or indicated	may/might be considered may/might be reasonable usefulness/effectiveness is unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well established	COR III: No Benefit	COR III: Harm
Comparative effectiveness phrases†		treatment/strategy A is recommended/indicated in preference to treatment B treatment A should be chosen over treatment B	treatment/strategy A is probably recommended/indicated in preference to treatment B it is reasonable to choose treatment A over treatment B		is not recommended is not indicated should not be performed/administered/other is not useful/beneficial/effective	potentially harmful causes harm associated with excess morbidity/morality should not be performed/administered/other

A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective.

^*Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use.

^†For comparative effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.