Under Construction...check back soon!
| Table 1. Recommendations Grades for Specific Clinical Preventive Actions | |
|---|---|
| A | There is good evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action. |
| B | There is fair evidence to recommend the clinical preventive action. |
| C | The existing evidence is conflicting and does not allow to make a recommendation for or against use of the clinical preventive action; however, other factors may influence decision making. |
| D | There is fair evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action. |
| E | There is good evidence to recommend against the clinical preventive action. |
| I | There is insufficient evidence (in quantity or quality) to make a recommendation; however, other factors may influence decision making. |
| The CTF recognizes that in many cases patient specific factors need to be considered and discussed, such as the value the patient places on the clinical preventive action; its possible positive and negative outcomes; and the context and /or personal circumstances of the patient (medical and other). In certain circumstances where the evidence is complex, conflicting or insufficient, a more detailed discussion may be required. | |
| Table 2. Levels of Evidence - Research Design Rating | |
| I | Evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized trial. |
| II-1 | Evidence obtained from a well-designed, controlled trial without randomization. |
| II-2 | Evidence obtained from a well-designed cohort or case-controlled analytic studeis, preferably from more than one centre or research group. |
| II-3 | Evidence obtained from comparisons between times and places, with or without the intervention; dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments could also be included in this category. |
| III | Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees. |
| Table 3. Levels of Evidence - Quality (Internal Validity) Rating (see Harris et al., 2001) | |
| Good | A study (including meta-analyses or systematic reviews) that meets all design-specific criteria* well. |
| Fair | A study (including meta-analyses or systematic reviews) that does not meet (or it is not clear that it meets) at least one design-specific criterion* but has no known "fatal flaw". |
| Poor | A study (including meta-analyses or systematic reviews) that has at least one design-specific* "fatal flaw", or an accumulation of lesser flaws to the extent that the results of the study are not deemed able to inform recommendations. |
| *General design-specific criteria are outlined in Harris et al., 2001. | |