Guyatt G, Schunëmann H, Cook D, Jaeschke R, Pauker S, Bucher H
McMaster Univeristy Health Sciences Center, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Chest. 2001 Jan;119(1 Suppl):3S-7S. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.1_suppl.3s.
The strength of any recommendation depends on two factors: the trade-off between benefits and risks, and the strength of the methodology that leads us to estimates of the treatment effect. The framework that we used for this conference captures these factors. We grade the trade-off between benefits and risks in two categories: (1) the trade-off is clear enough that most patients, despite differences in values, would make the same choice; and (2) the trade-off is less clear, and each patient's values will likely lead to different choices. We grade methodologic strength in three categories: (1) randomized trials, ideally summarized in a meta-analysis, that show consistent results; (2) randomized trials with inconsistent results; and (3)observational studies. The framework summarized in Table 1 therefore generates recommendations from the very strong (1A: benefit/risk clear, methods strong) to the very weak (2C: benefit/risk questionable, methods weak). Whatever the grade of recommendation, clinicians must bring their judgment considering local and individual patient circumstances, and patient values, to bear in making individual decisions. In general, however, they should place progressively greater weight on expert recommendations as they move from 2C to 1A.
获益与风险之间的权衡,以及引导我们得出治疗效果估计值的方法的力度。我们在本次会议中使用的框架涵盖了这些因素。我们将获益与风险之间的权衡分为两类:(1)这种权衡足够清晰,以至于大多数患者,尽管价值观存在差异,都会做出相同的选择;(2)这种权衡不太清晰,每个患者的价值观可能会导致不同的选择。我们将方法学力度分为三类:(1)随机试验,理想情况下汇总在一项荟萃分析中,显示出一致的结果;(2)结果不一致的随机试验;(3)观察性研究。因此,表1中总结的框架产生了从非常强(1A:获益/风险明确,方法有力)到非常弱(2C:获益/风险存疑,方法薄弱)的推荐。无论推荐的等级如何,临床医生在做出个人决策时都必须结合当地和个体患者的情况以及患者的价值观进行判断。然而,一般来说,当他们从2C级别转向1A级别时,应该越来越重视专家的推荐。