Grades and Levels of Evidence
Original Editor - Tyler Shultz
Introduction[edit | edit source]
Levels of evidence help you to target your search at the type of evidence that is most likely to provide a reliable answer. It has been designed so that it can be used as a short-cut for busy clinicians, researchers, or patients to find the likely best evidence.
Grades of evidence describe the strength and therfore value of the evidence relative to how rigorous the study was.
Levels of Evidence[edit | edit source]
What are we to do when the irresistible force of the need to offer clinical advice meets with the immovable object of flawed evidence? All we can do is our best: give the advice, but alert the advisees to the flaws in the evidence on which it is based.
This has been adapted from Sackett, Straus and Richardson (2000)
|Level of Evidence||Type of Study|
|1a||Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)|
|1b||Individual RCTs with narrow confidence interval|
|2a||Systematic reviews of cohort studies|
|2b||Individual cohort studies and low-quality RCTs|
|3a||Systematic reviews of case-control studies|
|4||Case series and poor-quality cohort and case-control studies|
The CEBM 'Levels of Evidence' guidelines outline another approach to systematizing this process for different question types.
|Level||Therapy/Prevetion, Aetiology/Harm'||Prognosis||Diagnosis||Differential Diagnosis||Economic and Descision Analysis|
|1A||SR (with homogeneity) of RCTs||SR (with homogeneity) of inception cohort studies; CDR validated in different populations||SR (with homogeneity) of Level 1 diagnostic studies; CDR with 1b studies from different clinical centres||SR (with homogeneity) of prospective cohort studies||SR (with homogeneity) of Level 1 economic studies|
|1B||Individual RCT (with narrow Confidence Interval)||Individual inception cohort study with > 80% follow-up; CDR validated in a single population||Validating cohort study with good reference standards; or CDR tested within one clinical centre||Prospective cohort study with good follow-up||Analysis based on clinically sensible costs or alternatives; systematic review(s) of the evidence; and including multi-way sensitivity analyses|
|1C||All or none series||All or none case serires||Absoulute SpPins and SnNouts||All or none case series||Absolute better-value or worse-value analyses|
|2A||SR (with homogeneity) of cohort studies||SR (with homogeneity) of either retrospective cohort studies or untreated control groups in RCTs||SR (with homogeneity) of Level >2 diagnostic studies||SR (with homogeneity) of 2b and better studies||SR (with homogeneity) of Level >2 economic studies|
||Individual cohort study (including low quality RCT; e.g., <80% follow-up)||Retrospective cohort study or follow-up of untreated control patients in an RCT; Derivation of CDR or validated on split-sample only||Exploratory cohort study with good reference standards; CDR after derivation, or validated only on split-sample or databases||Retrospective cohort study, or poor follow-up||Analysis based on clinically sensible costs or alternatives; limited review(s) of the evidence, or single studies; and including multi-way sensitivity analyses|
|2C||"Outcomes" Research; Ecological studies||"Outcomes" Research||Etiological Studies||Audit or outcomes research|
|3A||SR (with homogeneity) of case-control studies||<||SR (with homogeneity) of 3b and better studies||SR (with homogeneity) of 3b and better studies||SR (with homogeneity) of 3b and better studies|
|3B||Individual Case-Control Study||Non-consecutive study; or without consistently applied reference standards||Non-consecutive cohort study, or very limited population||Analysis based on limited alternatives or costs, poor quality estimates of data, but including sensitivity analyses incorporating clinically sensible variations.|
|4||Case-series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies)||Case-series (and poor quality prognostic cohort studies)||Case-control study, poor or non-independent reference standard||Case-series or superseded reference standards||Analysis with no sensitivity analysis|
|5||Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles"||Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles"||Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or "first principles"|
Grades of Evidence[edit | edit source]
|Grades of Recommendation||Strength of Evidence|
|A||Strong Evidence||A preponderance of level I and/or level II studies support the recommendation. This must include at least 1 level I study.|
|B||Moderate Evidence||A single high-quality randomized controlled trial or a preponderance of level II studies support the recommendation|
|C||Weak Evidence||A single level II study or a preponderance of level III and IV studies including statements of consensus by content experts support the recommendation|
|D||Conflicting Evidence||Higher-quality studies conducted on this topic disagree with respect to their conclusions. The recommendation is based on these conflicting studies|
|E||Theoretical/ Foundational Evidence||A preponderance of evidence from animal or cadaver studies, from conceptual models/principles, or from basic sciences/bench research support this conclusion|
|F||Expert Opinion||Best practice based on the clinical experience of the guidelines development team|
Resources[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2.Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.</ref>.
- Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone Inc; 2000:173-177.
- OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2.fckLROxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
- Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274(22):1800-1804.