Dear Carlos
That is helpful and fascinating. I would be interested to know more
about the reasons behind their preferences.
Do you think it was it based on:
1. ease of use
2. perceived quality or validity of the grading
3. clarity of the output
4. time taken
I'd suppose these and others play a role, but I'm curious about your
workshop participants perceptions.
Best Wishes
Paul Glasziou
Dr. Carlos Cuello wrote:
> Hello Wasan
>
> To begin with an basic introduction to guideline developement this is
> the first article of a large series published in BMC, all are free and
> are amazing.
>
> http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/4/1/12
>
> Part number nine is about grading the evidence. And part number 16 is
> about the quality of the guideline (AGREE mainly).
>
> I recently was part of the group for the development of CPG for the
> health ministry in Mexico. My workshop was precisely grading of
> evidence and recommendations. Nowadays there are more than 60 grading
> systems. According to an evaluation made by the AHRQ, Grade and SIGN
> were among the best evaluated by a group of experts
> (http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/4/1/21).
>
>
> In my group of "learners" I had over 70 representatives of all parts
> of Mexico as guideline developers (librarians, health techonology
> assesors and clinicians). They are from all states (provinces) and
> they are free to choose any grading system they like. I performed an
> excercise with the group, giving them the quest to give a
> recommendation based on the best evidence available. The question was
> on reference to racecadotril for children with acute diarrhea. (As for
> today, there are only one systematic review and two RCT inlcuded in
> the review in all the literature). I gave them the three papers and
> let them choose any system they have learned over the course (mainly,
> their choices were GRADE, SIGN, NICE, CEBM).
> I am about to publish this in a further trial, but here are some
> preliminary data on which they preferred.
>
> 35.3% GRADE
> 29.4% SIGN
> 23.5% NICE
> 11.7% CEBM
>
> Now I am in the phase of the "readers" or users of this evidence, to
> see which they prefer. I´ll be happy to share more information with
> you if you like.
>
>
> Good luck
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Wasan Ali <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I am looking at comparing various assessment tools for grading of
> evidence for guidelines and decision-making from various guideline
> groups. For example the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines
> Network), AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation),
> GRADE
> (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation), GIN
> (Guidelines International Network) website, etc.
> The aim is to look at which one to use and for what purpose (to
> look at
> pros/cos and applicability to different scenarios)?
>
> So does any one know of comparative analysis of the assessment
> tools or
> any relevant information?
>
> Your input is much appreciated,
> Best wishes,
> Wasan
>
> Dr Wasan Ali
> Research Fellow
> Health Services Assessment Collaboration (HSAC)
> University of Canterbury
> Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140
> New Zealand
> Web: http://www.healthsac.net/
> http://www.hsci.canterbury.ac.nz/hsac/about.shtml
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos A. Cuello-García, MD
> Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Practice-Tecnologico de Monterrey
> Cochrane-ITESM coordinator. Professor of Paediatrics and Clinical
> Research
> Avda. Morones Prieto 3000 pte. Col. Doctores. CITES 3er.
> piso,Monterrey NL, México. CP64710
> Phone. +52(81)88882154 & 2141. Fax: +52(81)88882019
> www.cmbe.net <http://www.cmbe.net>
>
> The content of this data transmission must not be considered an offer,
> proposal, understanding or agreement unless it is confirmed in a
> document signed by a legal representative of ITESM. The content of
> this data transmission is confidential and is intended to be delivered
> only to the addressees. Therefore, it shall not be distributed and/or
> disclosed through any means without the authorization of the original
> sender. If you are not the addressee, you are forbidden from using it,
> either totally or partially, for any purpose
--
Paul Glasziou
Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine,
Department of Primary Health Care,
University of Oxford www.cebm.net
ph - +44-1865-289298 fax +44-1865-289287
|