Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Oncol. Aug 24, 2021; 12(8): 581-608
Published online Aug 24, 2021. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i8.581
Published online Aug 24, 2021. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i8.581
Table 1 Infectious Diseases Society of America levels of evidence and grades of recommendation and European Society of Medical Oncology adaptation
IDSA United States Public Health Service Grading System for Ranking Recommendations in Clinical Guidelines | ESMO adaptation of IDSA Grading System | ||
Category, grade | Definition | Category, grade | Definition |
Strength of recommendation | Grades of recommendation | ||
A | Good evidence to support recommendation for use | A | Strong evidence for efficacy with a substantial clinical benefit, strongly recommended, strongly recommended |
B | Moderate evidence to support recommendation for use | B | Strong or moderate evidence for efficacy but with a limited clinical benefit, generally recommended |
C | Poor evidence to support a recommendation | C | Insufficient evidence for efficacy or benefit does not outweigh the risk or the disadvantages (adverse events, costs, etc.), optional |
D | Moderate evidence to support a recommendation against use | D | Moderate evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, generally not recommended |
E | Good evidence to support a recommendation against use | E | Strong evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, never recommended |
Quality of evidence | Levels of evidence | ||
I | Evidence from > 1 properly randomized, controlled trial | I | Evidence from at least one large randomized, controlled trial of good methodological quality (low potential for bias) or meta-analyses of well-conducted randomized trials without heterogeneity |
II | Evidence from > 1 well-designed clinical trial, without randomization; from cohort or case-controlled analytic studies (preferably from > 1 center); from multiple time series; or from dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments | II | Small randomized trials or large randomized trials with a suspicion of bias (lower methodological quality) or meta-analyses of such trials or of trials with demonstrated heterogeneity |
III | Evidence from opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees | III | Prospective cohort studies |
IV | Retrospective cohort studies or case-control studies | ||
V | Studies without control group, case reports, experts opinions |
- Citation: Luna J, Bobo A, Cabrera-Rodriguez JJ, Pagola M, Martín-Martín M, Ruiz MÁG, Montijano M, Rodríguez A, Pelari-Mici L, Corbacho A, Moreno M, Couñago F. GOECP/SEOR clinical guidelines on radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. World J Clin Oncol 2021; 12(8): 581-608
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v12/i8/581.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v12.i8.581