Table 1 Grading of recommendations from Guyatt and colleagues [[1],[2]]
From: 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections
Grade of recommendation | Clarity of risk/benefit | Quality of supporting evidence | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
1A | Â | Â | Â |
Strong recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
1B | Â | Â | Â |
Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
1C | Â | Â | Â |
Strong recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | Observational studies or case series | Strong recommendation based on limited evidence; recommendations may change when higher quality or more extensive evidence becomes available |
2A | Â | Â | Â |
Weak recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances, expertise of clinician, the patient in question, or other social issues |
2B | Â | Â | Â |
Weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances, expertise of clinician, the patient in question, or other social issues |
2C | Â | Â | Â |
Weak recommendation, Low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens; benefits, risks, and burdens may be closely balanced | Observational studies or case series | Very weak recommendation; other alternatives may be equally reasonable |