Simplifying the language of evidence to improve patient care

,

Applied Evidence

Simplifying the language of evidence to improve patient care

J Fam Pract. 2004 February;53(2):111-120

By

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS

Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature

PDF Download

References

1. Evidence-based medicine . A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992;268:2420-2425.

2. Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF, Bennett JH. Becoming a medical information master: feeling good about not knowing everything. J Fam Pract 1994;38:505-513.

3. Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Bennett JH. Becoming an information master: a guidebook to the medical information jungle. J Fam Pract 1994;39:489-499.

4. Siwek J, Gourlay ML, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Am Fam Physician 2002;65:251-258.

5. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Summary, evidence report/technology assessment: number 47. AHRQ pub. no. 02-E015, March 2002. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md. Available at: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/strengthsum.htm. Accessed on November 13, 2003.

6. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3 suppl):21-35.

7. Clarke M, Oxman AD. Cochrane reviewer’s handbook 4.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003. Available at: www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf. Accessed on November 13, 2003.

8. Gyorkos TW, Tannenbaum TN, Abrahamowicz M, Oxman AD, Scott EA, Millson ME, et al. An approach to the development of practice guidelines for community health interventions. Can J Public Health 1994;85(suppl 1):S8-S13.

9. Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M, et al. Developing an evidence-based guide to community preventive services—methods. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(1 suppl):35-43.

10. Greer N, Mosser G, Logan G, Halaas GW. A practical approach to evidence grading. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000;26:700-712.

11. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. JAMA 2000;284:1290-1296.

12. Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin vs chlorthalidone: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT) JAMA 2000;283:1967-1975.

13. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. N Engl J Med 1991;324:781-788.

14. Lepor H, Williford WO, Barry MJ, et al. The efficacy of terazosin, finasteride, or both in benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 1996;335:533-539.

15. Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002;347:81-88.

16. Dwyer T, Ponsonby AL. Sudden infant death syndrome: after the “back to sleep” campaign. BMJ 1996;313:180-181.

17. Yusuf S, Dagenais G, Pogue J, Bosch J, Sleight P. Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2000;342:154-160.

18. Moayyedi P, Soo S, Deeks J, Delaney B, Innes M, Forman D. Pharmacological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(1):CD001960.-

19. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321-333.

20. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837-853.

21. Meunier PJ, Sebert JL, Reginster JY, et al. Fluoride salts are no better at preventing new vertebral fractures than calcium-vitamin D in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the FAVO Study. Osteoporos Int 1998;8:4-12.

22. MacMahon S, Collins R, Peto R, Koster RW, Yusuf S. Effects of prophylactic lidocaine in suspected acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from the randomized, controlled trials. JAMA 1988;260:1910-1916.

23. Grumbach K. How effective is drug treatment of hypercholesterolemia? A guided tour of the major clinical trials for the primary care physician. J Am Board Fam Pract 1991;4:437-445.

24. Heidenreich PA, Lee TT, Massie BM. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality in patients with heart failure: a metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:27-34.

25. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Available at: www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp. Accessed on November 13, 2003.

26. Family Practice Inquiries Network. (FPIN). Available at: www.fpin.org. Accessed on November 13, 2003.

Key Points

Several taxonomies exist for rating individual studies and the strength of recommendations, making the analysis of evidence confusing for practitioners.
A new grading scale—the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT)—will be used by several family medicine and primary care journals (required or optional), allowing readers to learn 1 consistently applied taxonomy of evidence.
SORT is built around the information mastery framework, which emphasizes the use of patient-oriented outcomes that measure changes in morbidity or mortality. Levels of evidence from 1 to 3 for individual studies also are defined.
An A-level recommendation is based on consistent and good-quality patient-oriented evidence; a B-level recommendation is based on inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; and a C-level recommendation is based on consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, or case series for studies of diagnosis, treatment, prevention, or screening.

Review articles (or overviews) are highly valued by physicians as a way to keep up-to-date with the medical literature. Sometimes though, these articles are based more on the authors’ personal experience, or anecdotes, or incomplete surveys of the literature than on a comprehensive collection of the best available evidence. To improve the quality of review articles, there is an ongoing effort in the medical publishing field to use more explicit grading of the strength of evidence on which recommendations are based.^1-4

Making evidence easier to understand

Several journals, including American Family Physician and Journal of Family Practice, have adopted evidence-grading scales that are used in particular articles. Other organizations and publications have also developed evidence-grading scales. The diversity of these scales can be confusing for readers. More than 100 grading scales are in use by various medical publications.⁵ A level B recommendation in 1 journal may not mean the same thing in another. Even within 1 issue of a journal, evidence-grading scales often vary among the articles. Journal readers do not have the time, energy, or interest to interpret multiple grading scales, and more complex scales are difficult to integrate into daily practice.

Therefore the editors of the US family medicine and primary care journals (ie, American Family Physician, Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, and BMJ-USA) and the Family Practice Inquiries Network (FPIN) came together to develop a unified taxonomy for the strength of recommendations based on a body of evidence. The new taxonomy should fulfill several objectives:

Be uniform in most family medicine journals and electronic databases
Allow authors to evaluate the strength of recommendation of a body of evidence
Allow authors to rate the level of evidence for an individual study
Be comprehensive and allow authors to evaluate studies of screening, diagnosis, therapy, prevention, and prognosis
Be easy to use and not too time-consuming for authors, reviewers, and editors who may be content experts but not experts in critical appraisal or clinical epidemiology
Be straightforward enough that primary care physicians can readily integrate the recommendations into daily practice.

Defining terms of evidence

A number of relevant terms must be defined for clarification.

Disease-oriented outcomes. These outcomes include intermediate, histopathologic, physiologic, or surrogate results (eg, blood sugar, blood pressure, flow rate, coronary plaque thickness) that may or may not reflect improvements in patient outcomes.

Patient-oriented outcomes. These are outcomes that matter to patients and help them live longer or better lives, including reduced morbidity, mortality, or symptoms, improved quality of life, or lower cost.

Level of evidence. The validity of an individual study is based on an assessment of its study design. According to some methodologies,⁶ levels of evidence can refer not only to individual studies but also to the quality of evidence from multiple studies about a specific question or the quality of evidence supporting a clinical intervention. For simplicity and consistency in this proposal, we use the term level of evidence to refer to individual studies.

Strength of recommendation. The strength (or grade) of a recommendation for clinical practice is based on a body of evidence (typically more than 1 study). This approach takes into account the level of evidence of individual studies, the type of outcomes measured by these studies (patient-oriented or disease-oriented), the number, consistency, and coherence of the evidence as a whole, and the relationship between benefits, harms, and costs.

Practice guideline (evidence-based). These guidelines are recommendations for practice that involve a comprehensive search of the literature, an evaluation of the quality of individual studies, and recommendation grades that reflect the quality of the supporting evidence. All search, critical appraisal, and grading methods should be described explicitly and be replicable by similarly skilled authors.

Practice guideline (consensus). Consensus guidelines are recommendations for practice based on expert opinions that typically do not include a systematic search, an assessment of the quality of individual studies, or a system to label the strength of recommendations explicitly.