Advertisement
Table 4 Grading systems used to determine the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation
| CPG | Name of grading system | Level of evidence grading | Strength of recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ASIPP [41] | United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria |
Good Fair Poor | None |
| 2 | ICSI [31] | In transition between ISCI system to GRADE. Thus, using an hybrid system |
High quality evidence Low quality evidence | None |
| 3 | NOUGG [42] | – |
I, II-1 II-2 II-3 OR III |
A, B, C |
| 4 | RNAO [32] | Adapted SIGN |
Ia Ib IIa IIb III IV | None |
| 5 | SIGN [30] | SIGN |
1++, 1+ 2++; 2+; 2- 3 4 |
A, B, C, D, Good practice point |
| 6 | UMHS [43] | – |
A B C D |
I II III |
| 7 | WSAMDG [44] | Rating scheme (not provided) | Not provided | None |
| 8 | APS AAP [45] | Adapted GRADE methodology. |
High quality evidence Medium quality evidence Low quality evidence |
Strong recommendation Weak recommendation |
| 9 | Harris [46, 47] | Modified Canadian Task Force Grading System |
I, II-1 II-2 II-3 OR III |
A, B, C |
| 10 | Raff [48] | – | None | None |
| 11 | Sanders [33] | – | None | None |
| 12 | Schnitzer [7] | – | None | None |
