| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 16:9-18 (2004)
© International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved
Examining the Evidence |
Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
Objectives. To summarize an extensive review of systems for grading the quality of research articles and rating the strength of bodies of evidence, and to highlight for health professionals and decision-makers concerned with quality measurement and improvement the available ‘best practices’ tools by which these steps can be accomplished.
Design. Drawing on an extensive review of checklists, questionnaires, and other tools in the field of evidence-based practice, this paper discusses clinical, management, and policy rationales for rating strength of evidence in a quality improvement context, and documents best practices methods for these tasks.
Results. After review of 121 systems for grading the quality of articles, 19 systems, mostly study design specific, met a priori scientific standards for grading systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and diagnostic tests; eight systems (of 40 reviewed) met similar standards for rating the overall strength of evidence. All can be used as is or adapted for particular types of evidence reports or systematic reviews.
Conclusions. Formally grading study quality and rating overall strength of evidence, using sound instruments and procedures, can produce reasonable levels of confidence about the science base for parts of quality improvement programs. With such information, health care professionals and administrators concerned with quality improvement can understand better the level of science (versus only clinical consensus or opinion) that supports practice guidelines, review criteria, and assessments that feed into quality assurance and improvement programs. New systems are appearing and research is needed to confirm the conceptual and practical underpinnings of these grading and rating systems, but the need for those developing systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and quality or audit criteria to understand and undertake these steps is becoming increasingly clear.
Keywords: clinical practice guidelines, evidence-based practice, quality improvement, quality of care strength of evidence
Accepted for publication September 24, 2003.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L V Rubenstein, S Hempel, M M Farmer, S M Asch, E M Yano, D Dougherty, and P W Shekelle Finding order in heterogeneity: types of quality-improvement intervention publications Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2008; 17(6): 403 - 408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. French and G. Gronseth Invited Article: Lost in a jungle of evidence: We need a compass Neurology, November 11, 2008; 71(20): 1634 - 1638. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Cranney, H. A Weiler, S. O'Donnell, and L. Puil Summary of evidence-based review on vitamin D efficacy and safety in relation to bone health Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2008; 88(2): 513S - 519S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. E. O'Neil and T. A. Nicklas A Review of the Relationship Between 100% Fruit Juice Consumption and Weight in Children and Adolescents American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, July 1, 2008; 2(4): 315 - 354. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Spoth, M. Greenberg, and R. Turrisi Preventive Interventions Addressing Underage Drinking: State of the Evidence and Steps Toward Public Health Impact Pediatrics, April 1, 2008; 121(Supplement_4): S311 - S336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. S. Braithwaite, M. S. Roberts, and A. C. Justice Incorporating Quality of Evidence into Decision Analytic Modeling Ann Intern Med, January 16, 2007; 146(2): 133 - 141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. J. Johnson Getting started in evidence-based practice for childhood speech-language disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2006; 15(1): 20 - 35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. L. Malin and N. L. Keating The Cost-Quality Trade-Off: Need for Data Quality Standards for Studies That Impact Clinical Practice and Health Policy J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2005; 23(21): 4581 - 4584. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. P. Steinberg and B. R. Luce Evidence Based? Caveat Emptor! Health Aff., January 1, 2005; 24(1): 80 - 92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Gartlehner, S. L. West, K. N. Lohr, L. Kahwati, J. G. Johnson, R. P. Harris, L. Whitener, C. E. Voisin, and S. Sutton Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods Int. J. Qual. Health Care, October 1, 2004; 16(5): 399 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|