title: GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
abstract: This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada. guyatt@mcmaster.ca
authors.forename: Gordon
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Guyatt
authors.forename: Andrew D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Oxman
authors.forename: Elie A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Akl
authors.forename: Regina
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Kunz
authors.forename: Gunn
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Vist
authors.forename: Jan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Brozek
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Norris
authors.forename: Yngve
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Falck-Ytter
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Glasziou
authors.forename: Hans
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: DeBeer
authors.forename: Roman
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Jaeschke
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Rind
authors.forename: Joerg
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Meerpohl
authors.forename: Philipp
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Dahm
authors.forename: Holger J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Schünemann
mesh_terms: D020811:Biomedical Technology / Q000592:standards; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D017594:Publication Bias; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012196:Review Literature as Topic