Rating the Quality of Evidence for Clinical Practice Guidelines

Published In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 49, no. 7, July 1996, p. 749-754

Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 1995

by David Hadorn, David William Baker, James S. Hodges, Nicholas R. Hicks

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.sciencedirect.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Describes the system for rating the quality of medical evidence developed and used during creation of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research-sponsored heart failure guideline. Previous approaches to rating evidence were not designed for use in the setting of clinical practice guidelines. The present system is based on the tenet that flaws in research design are serious to the extent that they threaten the validity of study results. A taxonomy of major and minor flaws based on that tenet was developed for randomized controlled trials and for cohort and medical registry studies. The use of the system is described in the context of two difficult clinical issues considered by the Panel: the role of coronary artery revascularization and the use of metoprotol.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.