1 ++ High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias... more 1 ++ High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias 1 + Well conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a low risk of bias 1 -Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a high risk of bias 2 ++ High quality systematic reviews of case control or cohort studies High quality case control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding or bias and a high probability that the relationship is causal 2 + Well conducted case control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding or bias and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal 2 -Casecontrolorcohortstudieswithahighriskofconfoundingorbiasandasignificantriskthattherelationshipisnotcausal 3 Non-analytic studies, eg case reports, case series 4 Expert opinion GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION Note: The grade of recommendation relates to the strength of the evidence on which the recommendation is based. It does not reflect the clinical importance of the recommendation. A At least one meta-analysis, systematic review, or RCT rated as 1 ++ , and directly applicable to the target population; or A body of evidence consisting principally of studies rated as 1 + , directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results B A body of evidence including studies rated as 2 ++ , directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 1 ++ or 1 + C A body of evidence including studies rated as 2 + , directly applicable to the target population and demonstrating overall consistency of results; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2 ++ D Evidence level 3 or 4; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2 + GOOD PRACTICE POINTS Recommended best practice based on the clinical experience of the guideline development group Audit point
1 ++ High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias... more 1 ++ High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias 1 + Well conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a low risk of bias 1 -Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a high risk of bias 2 ++ High quality systematic reviews of case control or cohort studies High quality case control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding or bias and a high probability that the relationship is causal 2 + Well conducted case control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding or bias and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal 2 -Casecontrolorcohortstudieswithahighriskofconfoundingorbiasandasignificantriskthattherelationshipisnotcausal 3 Non-analytic studies, eg case reports, case series 4 Expert opinion GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION Note: The grade of recommendation relates to the strength of the evidence on which the recommendation is based. It does not reflect the clinical importance of the recommendation. A At least one meta-analysis, systematic review, or RCT rated as 1 ++ , and directly applicable to the target population; or A body of evidence consisting principally of studies rated as 1 + , directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results B A body of evidence including studies rated as 2 ++ , directly applicable to the target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 1 ++ or 1 + C A body of evidence including studies rated as 2 + , directly applicable to the target population and demonstrating overall consistency of results; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2 ++ D Evidence level 3 or 4; or Extrapolated evidence from studies rated as 2 + GOOD PRACTICE POINTS Recommended best practice based on the clinical experience of the guideline development group Audit point
Uploads
Papers by Goran Srša