Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Grade: Going From Evidence To Recommendations: Analysis
Grade: Going From Evidence To Recommendations: Analysis
Physicians (n=63)
30 sity in values and preferences was apparent; a few
Patients (n=61) patients were ready to accept only a small risk of
25
bleeding. These data suggest that only in patients at
20 high risk of stroke would a strong recommendation
15 for warfarin be warranted.
10
Contrast this with the decision faced by preg-
nant women with deep venous thrombosis. War-
5
farin treatment between the sixth and 12th week
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 of pregnancy puts women’s unborn infants at risk
of relatively minor developmental abnormalities.
Maximum acceptable No of excess bleeds
The alternative, heparin, eliminates the risk to the
Fig 1 Varying thresholds of major gastrointestinal bleeding child. The benefit, however, comes with disadvan-
found acceptable by patients and physicians for prevention of tages of pain, inconvenience, and cost. Clinicians’
eight strokes in 100 patients experience is that women overwhelmingly place a
high value on preventing fetal complications. Thus,
balanced, a weak recommendation becomes appro- despite its disadvantages, a strong recommendation
priate. Consider, for instance, patients with atrial for heparin substitution is warranted.
fibrillation at low risk of stroke. Warfarin can reduce The final determinant of the strength of a recom-
that low risk even further, but adds inconvenience mendation is cost. Cost is much more variable over
and an increased risk of bleeding. The right choice time and geographical areas than are other outcomes.
under such circumstances is likely to differ between Drug costs tend to plummet when patents expire, and
patients. charges for the same drug differ widely across juris-
The second determinant of the strength of a rec- dictions. In addition, the resource implications vary
ommendation is the quality of the evidence. If we widely. For instance, a year’s prescription of the same
are uncertain of the magnitude of the benefits and expensive drug may pay for a single nurse’s salary in
harms of an intervention, making a strong recom- the United States and 30 nurses’ salaries in China.
mendation for or against a particular course of Thus, although higher costs reduce the likeli-
action becomes problematic. For instance, gradu- hood of a strong recommendation in favour of an
ated compression stockings have an apparent large intervention, the context of the recommendation
effect in reducing deep venous thrombosis in people will be critical. In considering resource allocation,
making long plane journeys. The randomised trials guideline panels must therefore be specific about
from which the estimate of effect comes were, how- the setting to which a recommendation applies.
ever, seriously flawed—the techniques for measuring
deep venous thrombosis were not reproducible, and Strong recommendations may not be important
the studies were unblinded. Despite the apparent from all perspectives
large benefit, use of stockings warrants only a weak If the consequences of the choice are relatively
recommendation.3 unimportant, some patients may not bother with
The third determinant of the strength of rec- even strong recommendations. This is particularly
ommendation is uncertainty about, or variability likely if they are faced with many new drugs or
in, values and preferences. Given that alternative many suggestions to change their lifestyle.
management strategies will always have advan- When setting priorities, governments and public
tages and disadvantages, and thus a trade-off exists, health officials must also consider factors beyond
how a guideline panel values benefits, risks, and the strength of a recommendation. These include
inconvenience is critical to the strength of any the prevalence of the health problem, considera-
recommendation. tions of equity, and the potential for improvement
Consider the subject of preventing strokes in in quality of care, all of which will have an impact
patients with atrial fibrillation. Warfarin, relative on the population health gain of an intervention.
to no antithrombotic therapy, reduces the risk of
stroke by approximately 65% but increases the risk Determinants of strength of recommendation
of severe gastrointestinal bleeding. Devereaux and Factor Comment
colleagues asked 63 physicians and 61 patients how Balance between desirable and The larger the difference between the desirable and undesirable effects,
many serious gastrointestinal bleeds they would tol- undesirable effects the higher the likelihood that a strong recommendation is warranted. The
narrower the gradient, the higher the likelihood that a weak recommendation is
erate in 100 patients and still be willing to prescribe warranted
or take warfarin to prevent eight strokes (four minor Quality of evidence The higher the quality of evidence, the higher the likelihood that a strong
and four major) in 100 patients.4 Figure 1 shows the recommendation is warranted
results. Whereas physicians gave a wide diversity Values and preferences The more values and preferences vary, or the greater the uncertainty in values
of responses, most patients placed a high value on and preferences, the higher the likelihood that a weak recommendation is
warranted
avoiding a stroke and were ready to accept a bleed- Costs (resource allocation) The higher the costs of an intervention—that is, the greater the resources
ing risk of 22% to reduce their chances of having a consumed—the lower the likelihood that a strong recommendation is warranted