Alkomiet Hasan1, Borwin Bandelow2, Lakshmi N Yatham3, Michael Berk4,5, Peter Falkai1, Hans-Jürgen Möller1, Siegfried Kasper6. 1. a Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy , Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München , Munich , Germany. 2. b Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy , Universitätsmedizin Göttingen , Goettingen , Germany. 3. c Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence Health Care , University of British Columbia , Vancouver , Canada. 4. d IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine , Deakin University , Geelong , Australia. 5. e Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, the Florey Institute for Neuroscience and Mental Health, and the Department of Psychiatry , University of Melbourne , Parkville , Australia. 6. f Deparment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy , Medizinische Universität Wien , Vienna , Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: This paper reviews sources of data typically used in guideline development, available grading systems, their pros and cons, and the methods for evaluating risks of bias in publications, and proposes a revised method for grading evidence and recommendations for use in development of clinical treatment guidelines. RESULTS: The new World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) grading system allows guideline developers to follow a multi-step approach of defining levels of evidence, applying criteria for grading (define the acceptability) and the grading of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Further, these updated WFSBP recommendations for rating evidence and treatment recommendations provide a grading system that takes into account potential biases in sources of evidence in arriving at final ratings that are likely more clinically meaningful and pragmatic and thus should be used for the development of future treatment guidelines.
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: This paper reviews sources of data typically used in guideline development, available grading systems, their pros and cons, and the methods for evaluating risks of bias in publications, and proposes a revised method for grading evidence and recommendations for use in development of clinical treatment guidelines. RESULTS: The new World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) grading system allows guideline developers to follow a multi-step approach of defining levels of evidence, applying criteria for grading (define the acceptability) and the grading of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Further, these updated WFSBP recommendations for rating evidence and treatment recommendations provide a grading system that takes into account potential biases in sources of evidence in arriving at final ratings that are likely more clinically meaningful and pragmatic and thus should be used for the development of future treatment guidelines.
Authors: Rachael W Taylor; Lindsey Marwood; Emanuella Oprea; Valeria DeAngel; Sarah Mather; Beatrice Valentini; Roland Zahn; Allan H Young; Anthony J Cleare Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Xenia M Hart; Christoph Hiemke; Luzie Eichentopf; Xenija M Lense; Hans Willi Clement; Andreas Conca; Frank Faltraco; Vincenzo Florio; Jessica Grüner; Ursula Havemann-Reinecke; Espen Molden; Michael Paulzen; Georgios Schoretsanitis; Thomas G Riemer; Gerhard Gründer Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 4.415
Authors: Xenia M Hart; Luzie Eichentopf; Xenija Lense; Thomas Riemer; Katja Wesner; Christoph Hiemke; Gerhard Gründer Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Lisa Löhrs; Mirjam Handrack; Ina Kopp; Frank Jessen; Elias Wagner; Peter Falkai; Astrid Röh; Wolfgang Strube; Alkomiet Hasan Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 3.630