©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Oncol. Aug 24, 2021; 12(8): 581-608
Published online Aug 24, 2021. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i8.581
Published online Aug 24, 2021. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i8.581
Table 1 Infectious Diseases Society of America levels of evidence and grades of recommendation and European Society of Medical Oncology adaptation
| IDSA United States Public Health Service Grading System for Ranking Recommendations in Clinical Guidelines | ESMO adaptation of IDSA Grading System | ||
| Category, grade | Definition | Category, grade | Definition |
| Strength of recommendation | Grades of recommendation | ||
| A | Good evidence to support recommendation for use | A | Strong evidence for efficacy with a substantial clinical benefit, strongly recommended, strongly recommended |
| B | Moderate evidence to support recommendation for use | B | Strong or moderate evidence for efficacy but with a limited clinical benefit, generally recommended |
| C | Poor evidence to support a recommendation | C | Insufficient evidence for efficacy or benefit does not outweigh the risk or the disadvantages (adverse events, costs, etc.), optional |
| D | Moderate evidence to support a recommendation against use | D | Moderate evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, generally not recommended |
| E | Good evidence to support a recommendation against use | E | Strong evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, never recommended |
| Quality of evidence | Levels of evidence | ||
| I | Evidence from > 1 properly randomized, controlled trial | I | Evidence from at least one large randomized, controlled trial of good methodological quality (low potential for bias) or meta-analyses of well-conducted randomized trials without heterogeneity |
| II | Evidence from > 1 well-designed clinical trial, without randomization; from cohort or case-controlled analytic studies (preferably from > 1 center); from multiple time series; or from dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments | II | Small randomized trials or large randomized trials with a suspicion of bias (lower methodological quality) or meta-analyses of such trials or of trials with demonstrated heterogeneity |
| III | Evidence from opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees | III | Prospective cohort studies |
| IV | Retrospective cohort studies or case-control studies | ||
| V | Studies without control group, case reports, experts opinions | ||
- Citation: Luna J, Bobo A, Cabrera-Rodriguez JJ, Pagola M, Martín-Martín M, Ruiz MÁG, Montijano M, Rodríguez A, Pelari-Mici L, Corbacho A, Moreno M, Couñago F. GOECP/SEOR clinical guidelines on radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. World J Clin Oncol 2021; 12(8): 581-608
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v12/i8/581.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v12.i8.581