The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An official ATS statement: Grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations.
Abstract
Grading the strength of recommendations and the quality of underlying evidence enhances the usefulness of clinical practice guidelines. Professional societies and other organizations, including the American Thoracic Society (ATS), should reach consensus about whether they will use one common grading system and which of the numerous grading systems they would apply across all guidelines. The profusion of guideline grading systems confuses consumers of guidelines, and undermines the value of the grading exercise in conveying a transparent message. In response to this dilemma, the international GRADE working group has developed an approach that is useful for many guideline contexts, and that several national and international organizations have adopted. The GRADE system classifies recommendations as strong or weak, according to the balance of the benefits and downsides (harms, burden, and cost) after considering the quality of evidence. The quality of evidence reflects the confidence in estimates of the true effects of an intervention, and the system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, the consistency and precision of the results, and the directness of the evidence. On recommendation of the ATS Documents Development and Implementation Committee, the ATS adopted the GRADE approach for its guidelines in line with many other organizations that have recently chosen the GRADE approach. This article informs ATS guideline developers, investigators, and those interpreting future ATS guidelines that follow the GRADE approach about the methodology and applicability of ATS guidelines and recommendations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The quality of evidence may differ across outcomes, even within a study, such as between a primary efficacy outcome, which is likely to be very carefully and systematically measured, and the assessment of serious harms [39], which may rely on spontaneous reports by investigators.”
From Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients.
Van den Berghe, G., Wouters, P., Weekers, F., Verwaest, C., Bruyninckx, F., Schetz, M., Vlasselaers, D., Ferdinande, P., Lauwers, P., & Bouillon, R. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa011300 · Cited by 9,977
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Self-citationDecision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
PAUWELS, R. A., Buist, A. S., CALVERLEY, P. M. A., Jenkins, C. R., & Hurd, S. S. (2001) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.163.5.2101039 · Cited by 6,578
A randomized trial comparing lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema
(2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa030287 · Cited by 2,071
Antithrombotic Therapy for Venous Thromboembolic Disease
Hyers, T. M., Agnelli, G., Hull, R. D., Morris, T. A., Samama, M. M., Tapson, V. F., & Weg, J. G. (2001) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1378/chest.119.1_suppl.176s · Cited by 2,035
Antithrombotic Therapy for Venous Thromboembolic Disease
Büller, H. R., Agnelli, G., Hull, R. D., Hyers, T. M., Prins, M. H., & Raskob, G. E. (2004) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.126.3_suppl.401s · Cited by 1,249 · cited 1×
“It is likely, however, that most patients would prefer avoiding another DVT and accept the risk of a bleeding episode (18).”
BackgroundAtkins, D., Eccles, M., Flottorp, S., Guyatt, G. H., Henry, D., Hill, S., Liberati, A., O'Connell, D., Oxman, A. D., Phillips, B., et al. (2004) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-4-38 · Cited by 1,235
Self-citationClinical guidelines: Developing guidelines
Shekelle, P., Woolf, S. H., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593 · Cited by 1,220
Grading Strength of Recommendations and Quality of Evidence in Clinical Guidelines
Guyatt, G., Gutterman, D., Baumann, M. H., Addrizzo-Harris, D., Hylek, E. M., Phillips, B., Raskob, G., Lewis, S. Z., & Schünemann, H. (2006) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.129.1.174 · Cited by 1,220
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 2002, ACP J Club, 136, A11
- 2003, CMAJ, 169, 677
- 2006, ACP J Club, 144, A08
- 2003, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, CD001431
- 2004, ACP Journal Club, 140, A11
- 2004, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, CD003844
- 2000, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3, CD 001367
- 2004, Chest, 126, 401S, 10.1378/chest.126.3_suppl.401S · DOI · Paper page
- Health Res Policy Syst
- Health Res Policy Syst
- 2003, Crit Care Med, 12, 2742
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Metadata
- Authors
- Schünemann, H. J., Jaeschke, R., Cook, D. J., Bria, W. F., El-Solh, A. A., Ernst, A., Fahy, B. F., Gould, M. K., Horan, K. L., Krishnan, J. A., Manthous, C. A., Maurer, J. R., McNicholas, W. T., Oxman, A. D., Rubenfeld, G., Turino, G. M., & Guyatt, G.
- Affiliations
- American Thoracic Society (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-09-01
- Volume
- 174
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 605-614
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W2144086043
- Cited by
- 577
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 48
- FWCI
- 39.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- GRADE, quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, guideline development, evidence-based medicine
- MeSH terms
- Health Policy, Humans, Research Design, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, 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
