ADA guidelines classification scheme: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rim Halaby (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
{{CMG}}; {{AE}} {{ | {{CMG}}; {{AE}} {{MehdiP}} | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) developed a | 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== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
{{WH}} | {{WH}} | ||
{{WS}} | {{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
❑ Compelling nonexperimental evidence, i.e., “all or none” rule developed by the
❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials that are
|
B | ❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies
❑ Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study |
C | ❑ Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies
❑ Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the
|
E | ❑ Expert consensus or clinical experience |