Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorAgoritsas, Thomas 
Authordc.contributor.authorMerglen, Arnaud 
Authordc.contributor.authorHeen, Anja Fog 
Authordc.contributor.authorKristiansen, Annette 
Authordc.contributor.authorNeumann, Ignacio 
Authordc.contributor.authorBrito, Juan P. 
Authordc.contributor.authorBrignardello Petersen, Romina 
Authordc.contributor.authorAlexander, Paul E. 
Authordc.contributor.authorRind, David M. 
Authordc.contributor.authorVandvik, Per O. 
Authordc.contributor.authorGuyatt, Gordon H. 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2018-06-04T16:52:33Z
Available datedc.date.available2018-06-04T16:52:33Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2017
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationBMJ Open 2017;7: e018593es_ES
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018593
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/148518
Abstractdc.description.abstractIntroduction UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified. Objectives Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations. Design Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate. Methods We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate. Results UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation. Conclusion The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations-in UpToDate and elsewhere-when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence.es_ES
Lenguagedc.language.isoenes_ES
Publisherdc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupes_ES
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile*
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/*
Sourcedc.sourceBMJ Openes_ES
Títulodc.titleUpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical surveyes_ES
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista
Catalogueruchile.catalogadortjnes_ES
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publicación ISIes_ES


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile