title: Clinical practice guidelines: potential misconceptions of the GRADE approach.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To challenge the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) group to address the potential misconceptions about their approach to grading the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.
  
  
  METHODS
  Based on our own expertise of health care professionals trying to think in depth about, and using, guidelines, we have identified four such misconceptions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  These potential misconceptions are: (1) evidence in medicine means factual or scientific evidence; (2) opinions are a subcategory of evidence; (3) the most important evidence is related to clinical benefits and harms; (4) being virtuous, and principled, does not particularly help in developing the best possible guidelines.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We call on the GRADE leadership to address all the above-mentioned misconceptions. These need explicit answers in their manuscript series.
authors.affiliation: Laboratoire de Biologie Polyvalente, Hôpital Général, Villefranche-de-Rouergue, France; Working Group on Guidelines of the Société Française de Biologie Clinique (SFBC), Faculté de Pharmacie, Avenue de L'observatoire, 75005 Paris, France. Electronic address: watine61@hotmail.com.
authors.forename: Joseph
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Watine
authors.forename: Julien
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wils
authors.forename: Christine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Augereau
mesh_terms: D026683:Advisory Committees / Q000458:organization & administration*; D032882:Comprehension; D003659:Decision Making, Organizational; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D009626:Terminology as Topic
keywords: Emotions; Evidence; Guidelines; Judgments; Opinions; Values