S A Tirlapur1, K S Khan. 1. Women's Health Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK, s.a.tirlapur@qmul.ac.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Clinical guidelines on bladder pain syndrome (BPS) report quality ratings for evidence based on study design. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system takes into account several domains in addition to limitations of study design for assigning quality ratings. We compared the quality of evidence described in current BPS literature. METHODS: All existing systematic reviews and guidelines on BPS management were reviewed, and included evidence was rated according to GRADE on a four-point scale (1-4, from very low to high). These ratings were compared to the two reported quality assessments that assigned levels or strengths to evidence; both had a four-point scale: level of evidence 1-4 from meta-analysis of randomised studies to expert opinion; and strength of evidence 1-4 from very low to high. RESULTS: Of the 19 treatments for BPS with GRADE ratings, comparison with level of evidence ratings showed that, on average, the latter overestimated quality by 1.8 points [1.1 v 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.3; p = <0.0001). Comparison of GRADE ratings with strength of evidence ratings showed that, on average, the latter overestimated quality by 1.7 points (1.1 v 2.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.1; p = <0.0001). CONCLUSION: GRADE, a refined method of assigning quality to evidence, provided a more conservative gauge, giving a realistic assessment of the value of recommendations for consideration in practice.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Clinical guidelines on bladder pain syndrome (BPS) report quality ratings for evidence based on study design. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system takes into account several domains in addition to limitations of study design for assigning quality ratings. We compared the quality of evidence described in current BPS literature. METHODS: All existing systematic reviews and guidelines on BPS management were reviewed, and included evidence was rated according to GRADE on a four-point scale (1-4, from very low to high). These ratings were compared to the two reported quality assessments that assigned levels or strengths to evidence; both had a four-point scale: level of evidence 1-4 from meta-analysis of randomised studies to expert opinion; and strength of evidence 1-4 from very low to high. RESULTS: Of the 19 treatments for BPS with GRADE ratings, comparison with level of evidence ratings showed that, on average, the latter overestimated quality by 1.8 points [1.1 v 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.3; p = <0.0001). Comparison of GRADE ratings with strength of evidence ratings showed that, on average, the latter overestimated quality by 1.7 points (1.1 v 2.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.1; p = <0.0001). CONCLUSION: GRADE, a refined method of assigning quality to evidence, provided a more conservative gauge, giving a realistic assessment of the value of recommendations for consideration in practice.
Authors: David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-06-19
Authors: J L Brozek; E A Akl; P Alonso-Coello; D Lang; R Jaeschke; J W Williams; B Phillips; M Lelgemann; A Lethaby; J Bousquet; G H Guyatt; H J Schünemann Journal: Allergy Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: C Roos; E Borowiack; M Kowalska; A Zapalska; Bw Mol; L Mignini; C Meads; J Walczak; Ks Khan Journal: BJOG Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Joop P van de Merwe; Jørgen Nordling; Pierre Bouchelouche; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Mauro Cervigni; L Kurosch Daha; Suzy Elneil; Magnus Fall; Gero Hohlbrugger; Paul Irwin; Svend Mortensen; Arndt van Ophoven; John L Osborne; Ralph Peeker; Benedikte Richter; Claus Riedl; Jukka Sairanen; Martina Tinzl; Jean-Jacques Wyndaele Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kathleen Joy Propert; Robert Mayer; J Curtis Nickel; Christopher K Payne; Kenneth M Peters; Valerie Teal; David Burks; John W Kusek; Leroy M Nyberg; Harris E Foster Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Philip M Hanno; David Allen Burks; J Quentin Clemens; Roger R Dmochowski; Deborah Erickson; Mary Pat Fitzgerald; John B Forrest; Barbara Gordon; Mikel Gray; Robert Dale Mayer; Diane Newman; Leroy Nyberg; Christopher K Payne; Ursula Wesselmann; Martha M Faraday Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 7.600