肿瘤临床实践指南中推荐强度分级系统

Anna Rychert, D. Dziurda, M. Koperny, M. Krasztel, Katarzyna Joanna Kędzior, W. Wysoczański, R. Topor-Madry
{"title":"肿瘤临床实践指南中推荐强度分级系统","authors":"Anna Rychert, D. Dziurda, M. Koperny, M. Krasztel, Katarzyna Joanna Kędzior, W. Wysoczański, R. Topor-Madry","doi":"10.5603/njo.2021.0074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. In order to improve the applicability of clinical practice guidelines, their authors assign recommendations with grades denoting the degree of conviction regarding their practical application. Nevertheless even within one branch of medicine, significant differences between the grading systems arise. Material and methods. To identify these systems, websites of societies and institutions publishing oncology guidelines were searched. Only high-quality, regularly updated guidelines were included. Results. Five systems were analysed – all incorporate quality of evidence and strength of recommendation, but vary in the methods of their assessment and structure of the scales. Discussion. The described systems depend on the review of data, the quality of which supports the ascribed strength. Systems differ with regard to the methods of assessing the quality, quantity and consistency of evidence, potentially leading to assigning different grades of strength to recommendations based on the same studies. Conclusions. The introduction of unified grading systems across each branch of medicine could aid the development of unambiguous recommendations that are easy to introduce within the healthcare system.","PeriodicalId":130080,"journal":{"name":"Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systems for grading the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines in oncology\",\"authors\":\"Anna Rychert, D. Dziurda, M. Koperny, M. Krasztel, Katarzyna Joanna Kędzior, W. Wysoczański, R. Topor-Madry\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/njo.2021.0074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. In order to improve the applicability of clinical practice guidelines, their authors assign recommendations with grades denoting the degree of conviction regarding their practical application. Nevertheless even within one branch of medicine, significant differences between the grading systems arise. Material and methods. To identify these systems, websites of societies and institutions publishing oncology guidelines were searched. Only high-quality, regularly updated guidelines were included. Results. Five systems were analysed – all incorporate quality of evidence and strength of recommendation, but vary in the methods of their assessment and structure of the scales. Discussion. The described systems depend on the review of data, the quality of which supports the ascribed strength. Systems differ with regard to the methods of assessing the quality, quantity and consistency of evidence, potentially leading to assigning different grades of strength to recommendations based on the same studies. Conclusions. The introduction of unified grading systems across each branch of medicine could aid the development of unambiguous recommendations that are easy to introduce within the healthcare system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":130080,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/njo.2021.0074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/njo.2021.0074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

介绍。为了提高临床实践指南的适用性,他们的作者给建议分配了等级,表示对其实际应用的确信程度。然而,即使在一个医学分支内,分级系统之间也存在显著差异。材料和方法。为了确定这些系统,检索了发表肿瘤学指南的学会和机构的网站。只包括高质量的、定期更新的指南。结果。我们分析了五个系统,它们都包括证据质量和推荐力度,但在评估方法和量表结构上有所不同。讨论。所描述的系统依赖于数据的审查,其质量支持所述强度。系统在评估证据的质量、数量和一致性的方法方面存在差异,这可能导致对基于相同研究的建议分配不同的强度等级。结论。在每个医学分支中引入统一的分级系统可以帮助制定明确的建议,这些建议很容易在医疗保健系统中引入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Systems for grading the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines in oncology
Introduction. In order to improve the applicability of clinical practice guidelines, their authors assign recommendations with grades denoting the degree of conviction regarding their practical application. Nevertheless even within one branch of medicine, significant differences between the grading systems arise. Material and methods. To identify these systems, websites of societies and institutions publishing oncology guidelines were searched. Only high-quality, regularly updated guidelines were included. Results. Five systems were analysed – all incorporate quality of evidence and strength of recommendation, but vary in the methods of their assessment and structure of the scales. Discussion. The described systems depend on the review of data, the quality of which supports the ascribed strength. Systems differ with regard to the methods of assessing the quality, quantity and consistency of evidence, potentially leading to assigning different grades of strength to recommendations based on the same studies. Conclusions. The introduction of unified grading systems across each branch of medicine could aid the development of unambiguous recommendations that are easy to introduce within the healthcare system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nutritional problems of patients after gastrectomy and the risk of developing malnutrition Outcomes of treatment, laboratory results, adverse effects, and tolerability of cancer treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib after cytoreductive nephrectomy Cytology of thyroid and parathyroid glands in oncology diagnosis – a contemporary review of updates and innovations Current role of chemoembolization in the treatment of HCC Post-treatment Surveillance Principles for Selected Skin Cancers – recommendations of the Surveillance Standardization Section of the Polish Oncology Society
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1