Judgments about evidence and recommendations in healthcare are complex. For example, those making recommendations about whether or not to recommend a new generation of blood thinners for patients with irregular heart beat (atrial fibrillation) must agree on which outcomes to consider, which evidence to include for each outcome, how to assess the quality of that evidence, and how to determine if blood thinners do more good than harm. Because resources are always limited and money that is allocated to treating atrial fibrillation cannot be spent on other worthwhile interventions, they may also need to decide whether any incremental health benefits are worth the additional costs.
Systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare provide essential, but not sufficient information for making well informed decisions. Reviewers and people who use reviews draw conclusions about the quality of the evidence, either implicitly or explicitly. Such judgments guide subsequent decisions. For example, clinical actions are likely to differ depending on whether one concludes that the evidence that blood thinners reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation is convincing (high quality) or that it is unconvincing (low quality).
Similarly, practice guidelines and people who use them draw conclusions about the strength of recommendations, either implicitly or explicitly. Using the same example, a guideline that recommends that patients with atrial fibrillation should be treated may suggest that all patients definitely should be treated or that patients should probably be treated, implying that treatment may not be warranted in all patients. A systematic and explicit approach to making judgments such as these can help to prevent errors, facilitate critical appraisal of these judgments, and can help to improve communication of this information.
One of the aims of the GRADE Working Group was to reduce unnecessary confusion arising from multiple systems for grading evidence and recommendations. To avoid adding to this confusion by having multiple variations of the GRADE system we suggest that the criteria below should be met when stating that the GRADE approach was used to assess evidence or develop recommendations. Also, while users may believe there may be good reasons for modifying the GRADE system, we discourage the use of "modified GRADE approaches" that differ from the approach described by the GRADE Working Group.
On the other hand, we encourage and welcome constructive criticism of the GRADE approach, suggestions for improvements, and involvement in the GRADE Working Group. As most scientific approaches to advancing healthcare, the GRADE approach will continue to evolve in response to new evidence and to meet the needs of systematic review authors, guideline developers and other users.
Suggested criteria for stating that the GRADE system was used (updated 2016-04; full pdf version with document history and references):
In order to more efficiently deal with administrative issues, the GRADE Guidance Group (G3) was established in 2013 with a committee of up to 12 members (increased from 10 to 12 in 2020) including the two co-chairs, with a rotating membership, meeting bimonthly.
Their role is to:
Members of the G3:
Clinicians and policy-making users and anyone new to GRADE may want to consider first reading the multi-part BMJ from 2008.
GRADEpro (now also called GRADEpro GDT app) - can be found on the GRADEpro website. GRADEpro and GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool are easy to use all-in-one web solution for summarizing and presenting information for healthcare decision making. It also includes the GRADE handbook. Example evidence profiles can be accessed through the database of evidence profiles and recommendations.
Want to quickly find out what GRADE is all about? We suggest reading our BMJ series. Please note that the online text is the longer, full version of the submitted manuscript. The pdf's on BMJ's website are abbreviated print issues. Start with GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, followed by What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? and Going from evidence to recommendations. You can also learn more about how diagnostic tests and strategies or resource use are considered in GRADE.Learn more
The JCE series and the GRADE handbook in GRADEpro provide a guide for systematic review and health technology assessment authors, guideline panelists and methodologists on how to apply the GRADE methodology framework in more detail: GRADE evidence profiles, framing the question and deciding on important outcomes, rating the quality of evidence, risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, rating up, resource use, overall rating, Summary of Findings tables (binary) and (continues), presentation of recommendations, and recommendation's direction and strength.Learn more
A GRADE center or network serves as the primary hub within the region for GRADE related questions and for support and collaboration opportunities. The mission of GRADE centers/networks is to help the GRADE working group in the training, promotion, dissemination and implementation of GRADE. GRADE centers and networks develop effective actions to spread the use of GRADE methodology in health guidelines and systematic reviews through advocacy, training and support of guideline developers and review authors; provide methodological support to national, regional or professional organizations and guideline development programs; and conduct workshops and graduate courses on GRADE application, e.g., for health science students, trainees, and faculty members. The GRADE working group is open for membership to all those who are interested from different background. Members who have conflict of interest are expected to declare their conflict during meetings and in email correspondence about publications.
Please sign up to receive news on activities of the GRADE working group