Grading the quality of evidence in complex interventions: A guide for evidence-based practitioners

Mohammad H Murad, Jehad Almasri, Mouaz Alsawas, Wigdan Farah

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Evidence-based practitioners who want to apply evidence from complex interventions to the care of their patients are often challenged by the difficulty of grading the quality of this evidence. Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and an illustrative example, we propose a framework for evaluating the quality of evidence that depends on obtaining feedback from the evidence user (eg, guideline panel) to inform: (1) proper framing of the question, (2) judgements about directness and consistency of evidence and (3) the need for additional contextual and qualitative evidence. Using this framework, different evidence users and based on their needs would consider the same evidence as high, moderate, low or very low.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalEvidence-Based Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Dec 8 2016

Fingerprint

Patient Care
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Grading the quality of evidence in complex interventions : A guide for evidence-based practitioners. / Murad, Mohammad H; Almasri, Jehad; Alsawas, Mouaz; Farah, Wigdan.

In: Evidence-Based Medicine, 08.12.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{58c1744ff286453180cbe469f8fa6601,
title = "Grading the quality of evidence in complex interventions: A guide for evidence-based practitioners",
abstract = "Evidence-based practitioners who want to apply evidence from complex interventions to the care of their patients are often challenged by the difficulty of grading the quality of this evidence. Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and an illustrative example, we propose a framework for evaluating the quality of evidence that depends on obtaining feedback from the evidence user (eg, guideline panel) to inform: (1) proper framing of the question, (2) judgements about directness and consistency of evidence and (3) the need for additional contextual and qualitative evidence. Using this framework, different evidence users and based on their needs would consider the same evidence as high, moderate, low or very low.",
author = "Murad, {Mohammad H} and Jehad Almasri and Mouaz Alsawas and Wigdan Farah",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1136/ebmed-2016-110577",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Evidence-Based Medicine",
issn = "1356-5524",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Grading the quality of evidence in complex interventions

T2 - A guide for evidence-based practitioners

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Almasri, Jehad

AU - Alsawas, Mouaz

AU - Farah, Wigdan

PY - 2016/12/8

Y1 - 2016/12/8

N2 - Evidence-based practitioners who want to apply evidence from complex interventions to the care of their patients are often challenged by the difficulty of grading the quality of this evidence. Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and an illustrative example, we propose a framework for evaluating the quality of evidence that depends on obtaining feedback from the evidence user (eg, guideline panel) to inform: (1) proper framing of the question, (2) judgements about directness and consistency of evidence and (3) the need for additional contextual and qualitative evidence. Using this framework, different evidence users and based on their needs would consider the same evidence as high, moderate, low or very low.

AB - Evidence-based practitioners who want to apply evidence from complex interventions to the care of their patients are often challenged by the difficulty of grading the quality of this evidence. Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and an illustrative example, we propose a framework for evaluating the quality of evidence that depends on obtaining feedback from the evidence user (eg, guideline panel) to inform: (1) proper framing of the question, (2) judgements about directness and consistency of evidence and (3) the need for additional contextual and qualitative evidence. Using this framework, different evidence users and based on their needs would consider the same evidence as high, moderate, low or very low.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006964780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006964780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110577

DO - 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110577

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85006964780

JO - Evidence-Based Medicine

JF - Evidence-Based Medicine

SN - 1356-5524

ER -