TY - JOUR
T1 - UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations
T2 - An analytical survey
AU - Agoritsas, Thomas
AU - Merglen, Arnaud
AU - Heen, Anja Fog
AU - Kristiansen, Annette
AU - Neumann, Ignacio
AU - Brito, Juan P.
AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
AU - Alexander, Paul E.
AU - Rind, David M.
AU - Vandvik, Per O.
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article). All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
PY - 2017/11/1
Y1 - 2017/11/1
N2 - Introduction 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.
AB - Introduction 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.
KW - clinical decision making
KW - clinical practice guidelines
KW - evidence-based medicine
KW - quality of the evidence
KW - strength of recommendations
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049407148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049407148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018593
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018593
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29150475
AN - SCOPUS:85049407148
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 7
JO - BMJ open
JF - BMJ open
IS - 11
M1 - e018593
ER -