Literature DB >> 20466314

Grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical dentistry: a critical review of 2 prominent approaches.

Clovis Mariano Faggion1.   

Abstract

The objective of this article was to critically review 2 prominent approaches used to grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Every year much information becomes available as a result of publication of scientific papers, and clinicians should be able to assess current evidence so they, along with their patients, can make the most appropriate clinical decisions. This is particularly important when there is little or no high-quality evidence available about the subject of interest. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) and the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) were evaluated. Strengths and weaknesses of these 2 systems are discussed, mainly on the basis of their relevance to clinical dentistry. The conclusion was that use of a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations is urgently required because of the great heterogeneity of the quality and type of evidence relating to many dental procedures. Use of such a system will enable clinicians and their patients to make more informed decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20466314     DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2010.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evid Based Dent Pract        ISSN: 1532-3382            Impact factor:   5.267


  3 in total

1.  The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Nikolaos Pandis; Padhraig S Fleming; Helen Worthington; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: the GRADE approach to improving dental clinical guidelines.

Authors:  Mona Nasser; Zbys Fedorowicz
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.698

3.  Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies.

Authors:  Andreas Lundh; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-04-21       Impact factor: 4.615

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.