Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

Philipp Dahm; Holger J. Schünemann

doi:10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

Philipp Dahm
, Holger J. Schünemann

Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health

University of Florida

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Evidence-Based Urology
Publisher	Wiley-Blackwell
Pages	29-37
Number of pages	9
ISBN (Print)	9781405185943
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444323146.ch4
State	Published - Jul 9 2010

Keywords

Clinical decision making-in setting of weak recommendations, a challenge
Determinants of strength of recommendation and implications of strong and weak recommendations
GRADE system, evaluating quality of evidence-and presenting recommendations
Grading recommendations
Interpreting strong and weak recommendations
key features of "quality of evidence"
Publication bias-quality of evidence, reduced when investigators fail to report outcomes
Question formulation and recommendations
Rating quality of evidence and making recommendations
Urologists, requiring clinical expertise-integrating a patient's circumstances and values with best available evidence

Access to Document

10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

Cite this

@inbook{c3f2b327774046deb3f8aa5d938bbd9f,

title = "Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations",

keywords = "Clinical decision making-in setting of weak recommendations, a challenge, Determinants of strength of recommendation and implications of strong and weak recommendations, GRADE system, evaluating quality of evidence-and presenting recommendations, Grading recommendations, Interpreting strong and weak recommendations, key features of {"}quality of evidence{"}, Publication bias-quality of evidence, reduced when investigators fail to report outcomes, Question formulation and recommendations, Rating quality of evidence and making recommendations, Urologists, requiring clinical expertise-integrating a patient's circumstances and values with best available evidence",

author = "Philipp Dahm and Sch{\"u}nemann, \{Holger J.\}",

year = "2010",

month = jul,

day = "9",

doi = "10.1002/9781444323146.ch4",

language = "English",

isbn = "9781405185943",

pages = "29--37",

booktitle = "Evidence-Based Urology",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

address = "United States",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

AU - Dahm, Philipp

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

PY - 2010/7/9

Y1 - 2010/7/9

KW - Clinical decision making-in setting of weak recommendations, a challenge

KW - Determinants of strength of recommendation and implications of strong and weak recommendations

KW - GRADE system, evaluating quality of evidence-and presenting recommendations

KW - Grading recommendations

KW - Interpreting strong and weak recommendations

KW - key features of "quality of evidence"

KW - Publication bias-quality of evidence, reduced when investigators fail to report outcomes

KW - Question formulation and recommendations

KW - Rating quality of evidence and making recommendations

KW - Urologists, requiring clinical expertise-integrating a patient's circumstances and values with best available evidence

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84885546318

U2 - 10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

DO - 10.1002/9781444323146.ch4

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84885546318

SN - 9781405185943

SP - 29

EP - 37

BT - Evidence-Based Urology

PB - Wiley-Blackwell

ER -

Rating the Quality of Evidence and Making Recommendations

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this