From: The Systematic Guideline Review: Method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure
Type | Definition | Further Action Plan for Guideline Development |
---|---|---|
Consistency | ||
(1) | Recommendations are consistent in content, evidence level and grading, and based on a large body of high level evidence (e.g. multiple primary or secondary studies of high internal and external validity) | Verification of cited sources with highest evidence level, and update searches, if necessary |
(2) | Recommendations are consistent in content, evidence level and grading, and based on a small body of high level evidence (e.g. a single or a few primary studies of high internal and external validity) | Verification of cited sources, further research on safety aspects in particular, and update searches |
(3) | Recommendations are consistent in content, evidence level and grading, and based on evidence from studies of low level evidence (e.g. studies with design-related biases or where methodological flaws reduce internal or external validity) or based on expert opinion (where evidence is lacking) | Further research on evidence |
(4) | Recommendations are consistent in content, but evidence levels and grading conflict | Verification of cited sources, and update searches |
Inconsistency | ||
(A) | Recommendations are completely inconsistent, neither a mainstream trend nor even a common denominator can be identified | Further research on evidence |
(B) | Recommendations are consistent in the majority of guidelines, but differing or even conflicting recommendations are to be found in a minority | Verification of cited sources to decide whether further research is necessary, and update-searches |