Strength of Recommendation and Quality of Evidence for Recommendations in Current Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines

Abstract

Background Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) is a systematic approach to grading strength of recommendation (SOR) and quality of evidence (QOE) for guideline recommendations. We aimed to assess the relationship between SOR and QOE in current Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines. Methods In this cross-sectional analysis, we analyzed the frequency of SOR-QOE pairings, including discordance (defined as strong SOR based on expert opinion, very low, or low QOE) for GRADEd recommendations in IDSA guidelines published since 2010. Data for each recommendation were extracted on SOR, QOE, the domain of disease management (one or more of diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and other categories), and relevance to drug or non-drug treatment. Results Seventeen eligible guidelines provided 1042 unique GRADEd recommendations (n = 237, 711, 76, and 73 pertaining to diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and other domains, respectively; n = 574 and 137 pertaining to drug and non-drug treatment). Overall, the most common SOR was strong (71.8%; n = 748) and the most common QOE was low (48.6%; n = 506). Among all strong recommendations, 47.1% (n = 352) demonstrated discordance with QOE. By domain, strong recommendations were discordant in 36.6%, 51.4%, 29.3%, and 58.1% of recommendations pertaining to diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and other domains, respectively. Similarly, 50.7% and 54.0% of strong recommendations related to drug and non-drug treatment were discordant, respectively. We identified 39.6% of discordant recommendations to be consistent with good practice statements, which are recommended to be labeled as such without formal GRADEd designations of SOR or QOE. Conclusions Among all IDSA guideline recommendations with strong SOR, approximately half were discordant with QOE, and this frequency varied across strata of domains of disease management and in drug and non-drug treatment.

Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancer

“…Our findings mirror that of other studies which evaluated SRs in CPGs in gastroenterology, cardiology, and infectious disease 49–51 . In the field of otolaryngology, a study conducted by Heigle et.…”

“…48 Our findings mirror that of other studies which evaluated SRs in CPGs in gastroenterology, cardiology, and infectious disease. [49][50][51] In the field of otolaryngology, a study conducted by Heigle et. al, found that 47.2% of SRs in regards to the treatment of Meniere's disease had an appraisal rating of critically low, and none of which that highly adhered to the AMSTAR-2 checklist.…”

Use of Novel Strategies to Develop Guidelines for Management of Pyogenic Osteomyelitis in Adults

“…The group constructed a charter that specifically chose not to use the GRADE system for evaluating strength of evidence based on previously published concerns regarding bias, poor interrater reliability, and, most importantly, the dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence (Supplement 1). [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Instead, the group sought to incorporate the "humility of uncertainty" 7 by only providing clear recommendations when reproducible, high-quality, hypothesis-confirming evidence is available, requiring at a minimum: (1) 1 properly conducted, adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT); and (2) at least 1 other concordant, prospective, controlled clinical study-either a second RCT, a quasi-experimental pre-post study, a pragmatic nonrandomized trial, or a carefully conducted historically controlled study. In the absence of such data, the charter requires provision of clinical reviews that discuss care choices.…”

Public health research priorities for WHO on COVID-19 in the South-East Asia Region: results of a prioritization survey

“…An initial assessment of studies on COVID showed that many of them were of low quality [ 5 ]. Poor quality of evidence usually, though not always, translates into lower strength of recommendations, which may have serious public health implications [ 6 ]. This creates problems for decision-makers, as they are unable to weigh the evidence or identify research that is relevant to them [ 7 ].…”