|
Grade of recommendation/description | Benefit versus risk and burdens | Methodological quality of supporting evidence | Implications |
|
1A/strong recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation; it can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
|
1B/strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation; it can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
|
IC/strong recommendation, low-quality, or very low-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens or vice versa | Observational studies or case series | Strong recommendation, but it may change when higher quality evidence becomes available |
|
2A/weak recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation; its best action may differ depending on circumstances and patients’ or social values |
|
2B/weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation; its best action may differ depending on circumstances and patients’ or social values |
|
2C/weak recommendation, low-quality, or very low-quality evidence | Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burden; benefits, risk, and burden may be closely balanced | Observational studies or case series | Very weak recommendations; other alternatives may be equally reasonable |
|