ADA guidelines classification scheme: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Aarti Narayan (talk | contribs)
Created page with "__NOTOC__ {{CMG}}; {{AE}} {{AN}} ==Overview== The American Diabetes Association (ADA) developed a classification system to grade the quality of scientific evidence to support..."
 
Mehdi Pahlavani (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
{{CMG}}; {{AE}} {{AN}}
{{CMG}}; {{AE}} {{MehdiP}}


==Overview==
==Overview==
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) developed a classification system to grade the quality of scientific evidence to support the ADA recommendations for all position statements. However, ADA encourages physicians to individualize treatment depending on the clinical presentation and characteristics of a particular patient scenario in context.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) developed a grading system to grade the quality of scientific evidence to support the ADA recommendations for all position statements.
 
==Evidence Grading System==
ADA has developed a grading system for leveling the standards of medical care in diabetes.
 
{| class="wikitable"
!Level of evidence
!Desciption
|-
|'''A'''
|❑ Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled trials
 
:that are adequately powered, including
* Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
* Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the  analysis
❑ Compelling nonexperimental evidence, i.e., “all or none” rule developed by the
 
:Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford
 
❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials that are
 
:adequately powered, including
* Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
* Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the  analysis
|-
|'''B'''
|❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies
* Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
* Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies
❑ Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study
|-
|'''C'''
|❑ Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies
* Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or three or  more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
* Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as  case series with comparison with historical controls)
* Evidence from case series or case reports
❑ Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the
 
:recommendation
|-
|'''E'''
|❑ Expert consensus or clinical experience
|}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{WH}}
{{WS}}

Latest revision as of 16:51, 6 December 2016

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Seyedmahdi Pahlavani, M.D. [2]

Overview

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) developed a grading system to grade the quality of scientific evidence to support the ADA recommendations for all position statements.

Evidence Grading System

ADA has developed a grading system for leveling the standards of medical care in diabetes.

Level of evidence Desciption
A ❑ Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled trials
that are adequately powered, including
  • Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis

❑ Compelling nonexperimental evidence, i.e., “all or none” rule developed by the

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford

❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials that are

adequately powered, including
  • Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
B ❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies
  • Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
  • Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies

❑ Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study

C ❑ Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies
  • Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
  • Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison with historical controls)
  • Evidence from case series or case reports

❑ Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the

recommendation
E ❑ Expert consensus or clinical experience

References

Template:WH Template:WS