GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

Clicks: 481
ID: 114470
2008
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #7 of 225 articles by views in BMJ

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 225 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide
Reference Key
gh2008bmjgrade: Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Guyatt GH;Oxman AD;Vist GE;Kunz R;Falck-Ytter Y;Alonso-Coello P;Schünemann HJ; ;;
Journal BMJ
Year 2008
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18436948
Keywords
decision making National Center for Biotechnology Information NCBI NLM MEDLINE Health Care pubmed abstract nih national institutes of health national library of medicine gordon h guyatt andrew d oxman grade working group evidence-based medicine / standards practice guidelines as topic / standards* quality indicators pmid:18436948 pmc2335261 doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad consensus

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.