Cited by 894Clinical practice guidelines implementationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and Education

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions

Abstract

The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach provides guidance to grading the quality of underlying evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. The GRADE system’s conceptual underpinnings allow for a detailed stepwise process that defines what role the quality of the available evidence plays in the development of health care recommendations. The merit of GRADE is not that it eliminates judgments or disagreements about evidence and recommendations, but rather that it makes them transparent. This first article in a three‐part series describes the GRADE framework in relation to grading the quality of evidence about interventions based on examples from the field of allergy and asthma. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence reflects the extent to which a guideline panel’s confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation. The system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.01973.x

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brożek, J. L., Akl, E. A., Alonso‐Coello, P., Lang, D., Jaeschke, R., Williams, J. W., Phillips, B., Lelgemann, M., Lethaby, A., Bousquet, J., Guyatt, G. H., Schünemann, H. J., & for the GRADE Working Group
Affiliations
  • Jagiellonian University (PL)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Hospital de Sant Pau (ES)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Bremen (DE)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Instituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena (IT)
Corresponding author
Schünemann, H. J.
Venue
Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04
Volume
64
Issue
5
Pages
669-677
ISSN
  • 0105-4538 (ISSN-L)
  • 1398-9995
OpenAlex
W1968350578
Cited by
894
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 30
FWCI
4.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Allergy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
GRADE framework, quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, asthma, evidence-based medicine, research methodology
MeSH terms
Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review