|
GRADE quality assessment criteria |
|||
| Quality of evidence |
Study design |
Lower if * |
Higher if * |
|
|
|||
| High |
Randomised trial |
Study quality: -1 Serious limitations -2 Very serious limitations -1 Important inconsistency Directness: -1 Some uncertainty -2 Major uncertainty -1 Sparse data -1 High probability of Reporting bias |
Strong association: +1 Strong, no plausible confounders, consistent and direct evidence** +2 Very strong, no major threats to validity and direct evidence*** +1 Evidence of a Dose response gradient +1 All plausible confounders would have reduced the effect |
| Moderate |
|||
| Low |
Observational study |
||
| Very low |
|||
|
* 1 = move up or down one grade (for example from high to intermediate) 2 = move up or down two grades (for example from high to low) ** A statistically significant relative risk of >2 (< 0.5), based on consistent evidence from two or more observational studies, with no plausible confounders *** A statistically significant relative risk of > 5 (< 0.2) based on direct evidence with no major threats to validity | |||
Schünemann et al. Health Research Policy and Systems 2006 4:21 doi:10.1186/1478-4505-4-21 |
|||