1 / 6

Implementing GRADE

Implementing GRADE. Experience of the Tufts Center for Kidney Disease Guideline Development and Implementation Tufts Medical Center, Boston MA Guideline methodology since 2000 (18 GL) Implementing GRADE since 2007 (6 GL) Ethan Balk, MD MPH Associate Director.

chaman
Download Presentation

Implementing GRADE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing GRADE Experience of the Tufts Center for Kidney Disease Guideline Development and Implementation Tufts Medical Center, Boston MA Guideline methodology since 2000 (18 GL) Implementing GRADE since 2007 (6 GL) Ethan Balk, MD MPH Associate Director 1

  2. Tufts Center for Kidney Disease Guideline Development and Implementation • Evidence Review Team for KDOQI & KDIGO • Kidney guidelines • Full-time guideline & systematic review methodologists • ~6 FTE • MDs, “guideline fellows”, research associates (MPH-level) • Work Group of ~15-20 international domain experts • 18 month process; 3 meetings 2

  3. Advantages compared to previous systems • Formal approach, standardized steps & tables • Gets Work Group to consider may aspects of evidence as they pertain to guidelines • Overall evidence quality, consistency, applicability • Rank outcomes (clinically important outcomes) • Balance benefits and harms • Simpler descriptions of recommendation levels (1, 2) and evidence quality (A, B, C, D) • Less arbitrary, more consistent connection between level of recommendations and quality of evidence • Eliminates reinventing the wheel 3

  4. Disadvantages compared to previous • Increased organizational workload •  # summary tables for specific outcomes • Evidence Profile creation resource intensive • Training Work Group in GRADE methods, Evidence Profiles complicated • Increases # of arbitrary formal decisions to maintain consistency • Study quality: (A/B/C)  Methodological quality (0, -1, -2) • 2A + 4B + 1C = -1? • 2B + 2C = -1? -2? • Translating consistency  (0, -1, -2) • Translating directness  (0, -1, -2) 4

  5. Responses to use of GRADE • Work Group likes because • it sets a standard structure and seems less arbitrary • simplifies decisionmaking about strength and content of recommendation • focuses on clinically important outcomes • But, large # of steps =  resources, time • Difficult for domain experts • Some frustration about highly detailed work of filling every cell of Evidence Profile • Added work load may diminish participation 5

  6. 6

More Related