Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
EBM Guidelines (EBMG) contains concise guidelines for primary and ambulatory care. The database of EBM Guidelines contains almost 1000 guidelines with links to over 3300 evidence summaries. Short evidence summaries provide the background evidence for the guidelines. Evidence summaries are produced and updated continuously by the editorial team. Main sources systematically followed are Cochrane reviews, DARE abstracts, Clinical Evidence and main general journals. The GRADE approach aspects have been adopted in the evidence grading. The corresponding codes for high, moderate, low, or very low quality of evidence are A, B, C and D. The factors down- or upgrading the quality of evidence are reported on the basis of the GRADE principles. The editorial team has developed a tool containing phrases for the most common down- and upgrading criteria to promote consistency and transparency in grading.
Objectives:
In this workshop we wish to present our experience of the GRADE approach in producing evidence summaries and to discuss our methods with other producers of guidelines or systematic reviews. We will
1. Present the methods that the guidelines editors use for gathering, updating and grading the evidence
2. Describe the experience that this practice has given and the feedback from guidelines users and experts
3. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these methods for grading the evidence.
Description:
The facilitators of this workshop will present the methods used for producing evidence summaries and how the GRADE rules for grading the strength of evidence are managed. Examples of evidence summaries and challenges in grading are presented and discussed in small groups.
EBM Guidelines (EBMG) contains concise guidelines for primary and ambulatory care. The database of EBM Guidelines contains almost 1000 guidelines with links to over 3300 evidence summaries. Short evidence summaries provide the background evidence for the guidelines. Evidence summaries are produced and updated continuously by the editorial team. Main sources systematically followed are Cochrane reviews, DARE abstracts, Clinical Evidence and main general journals. The GRADE approach aspects have been adopted in the evidence grading. The corresponding codes for high, moderate, low, or very low quality of evidence are A, B, C and D. The factors down- or upgrading the quality of evidence are reported on the basis of the GRADE principles. The editorial team has developed a tool containing phrases for the most common down- and upgrading criteria to promote consistency and transparency in grading.
Objectives:
In this workshop we wish to present our experience of the GRADE approach in producing evidence summaries and to discuss our methods with other producers of guidelines or systematic reviews. We will
1. Present the methods that the guidelines editors use for gathering, updating and grading the evidence
2. Describe the experience that this practice has given and the feedback from guidelines users and experts
3. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these methods for grading the evidence.
Description:
The facilitators of this workshop will present the methods used for producing evidence summaries and how the GRADE rules for grading the strength of evidence are managed. Examples of evidence summaries and challenges in grading are presented and discussed in small groups.