Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations of Clinical Practice Guidelines of Rehabilitation Based on GRADE
10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2020.02.005
- VernacularTitle:基于 GRADE康复临床实践指南证据质量与推荐强度研究
- Author:
Qi ZHOU
1
;
Ling WANG
2
,
3
;
Nan YANG
2
,
3
;
Xuan YU
4
,
5
;
Jing-yi ZHANG
2
,
3
;
Yan-fang MA
2
,
3
;
Jian-jian WANG
2
,
3
;
Xian-zhuo ZHANG
1
;
Xiu-e SHI
6
;
Yao-long CHEN
2
,
3
;
Ke-hu YANG
1
Author Information
1. the First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
2. Evidence-based
3. Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
4. WHO
5. Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
6. Rehabilitation Center Hospital of Gansu, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
- Publication Type:Research Article
- Keywords:
rehabilitation medicine;
clinical guidelines;
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation;
quality of evidence;
strength of recommendation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2020;26(2):156-160
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze the results of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) for clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation. Methods:Clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation were systematically retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang database and the guideline-related websites until January 11, 2020. Two researchers independently screened guidelines using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), and extracted and analyzed the results. Results:A total of 83 clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation were included, in which 46 (55.4%) applied grading systems. Only four (4.8%) guidelines applied GRADE, including 44 recommendations, in which 39 guidelines (88.6%) had quality of evidence. Among the evidences citied in the recommendations, low quality evidences were the most (34.1%); among the recommendations, weak recommendations were more (56.8%). The quality of strong recommendation supporting evidence was higher than that of weak recommendation (χ2 = 8.218,P < 0.05). Conclusion:The application of the GRADE grading system in clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation remains to be improved. It is proposed for guideline makers to further implement the methodology of guidelines and GRADE to improve the reliability and applicability of the clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation more effectively.
