FORM: An Australian method for formulating and grading recommendations in evidence-based clinical guidelines

Abstract

BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an important element of evidence-based practice. Considering an often complicated body of evidence can be problematic for guideline developers, who in the past may have resorted to using levels of evidence of individual studies as a quasi-indicator for the strength of a recommendation. This paper reports on the production and trial of a methodology and associated processes to assist Australian guideline developers in considering a body of evidence and grading the resulting guideline recommendations.MethodsIn recognition of the complexities of clinical guidelines and the multiple factors that influence choice in health care, a working group of experienced guideline consultants was formed under the auspices of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to produce and pilot a framework to formulate and grade guideline recommendations. Consultation with national and international experts and extensive piloting informed the process.ResultsThe FORM framework consists of five components (evidence base, consistency, clinical impact, generalisability and applicability) which are used by guideline developers to structure their decisions on how to convey the strength of a recommendation through wording and grading via a considered judgement form. In parallel (but separate from the grading process) guideline developers are asked to consider implementation implications for each recommendation.ConclusionsThe framework has now been widely adopted by Australian guideline developers who find it to be a logical and intuitive way to formulate and grade recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

Validating Whole Slide Imaging for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center

“…The other components of evidence, such as consistency, clinical impact, generalizability, and applicability to digital pathology, were also considered when determining the strength of evidence. 35 (Refer to In the evidence evaluation criteria used, Grade A or B evidence supports recommendations, the term we use for guidance based on a body of evidence that can be trusted to guide clinical practice in all or most situations. Grade C evidence is insufficient to support a recommendation; instead we use the term suggestion, for which care should be taken in application.…”

Guidelines in disrepute: a case study of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers

“…It is no longer sufficient to simply provide a recommendation: the strength of the recommendation must be indicated and there are processes for documenting this. [58][59][60] Adhering to these processes would prevent many of the issues discussed in this paper.…”

The basis for monitoring strategies in clinical guidelines: a case study of prostate-specific antigen for monitoring in prostate cancer

“…Our use of the original Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument 39 may be criticized given that it has been 10 years since its publication; however, at the time the framework was chosen, the update to the original instrument 41 and other potentially useful frameworks 42,43 were not yet available. Nevertheless, our approach to assessing the development and content of the guidelines was systematic and provides a reasonable means of comparing guidelines.…”