Research Article: Challenges in Developing Evidence-Based Recommendations Using the GRADE Approach: The Case of Mental, Neurological, and Substance Use Disorders

Date Published: August 31, 2010

Publisher: Public Library of Science

Author(s): Corrado Barbui, Tarun Dua, Mark van Ommeren, M. Taghi Yasamy, Alexandra Fleischmann, Nicolas Clark, Graham Thornicroft, Suzanne Hill, Shekhar Saxena

Abstract: Corrado Barbui and colleagues describe their use and adaptation of the GRADE approach in developing the guidelines for the WHO mental health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP).

Partial Text: The World Health Organization (WHO) has been criticized recently for not consistently making recommendations based on systematic reviews of the best available evidence and for the quality of some of its guidelines [1]–[3]. In 2007, WHO put in place procedures for developing transparent, evidence-based guidelines based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology [4],[5]. This methodology, developed by an international network of methodologists with an interest in grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (Box 1), has now been used to produce WHO guidelines for several topics. These include rapid advice guidelines for the pharmacological management of human H5N1 virus infection [6],[7] and guidelines on a single specific clinical topic such as psychosocially assisted pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence [8]. However, the GRADE approach has not yet been applied to develop recommendations that cover a broad range of conditions and interventions.

The pathway describing the process of recommendation development is presented in Figure 1. A network of experts were identified to convene the Guideline Development Group (GDG), taking into consideration multidisciplinary expertise and adequate regional and gender representation. The multidisciplinary expertise included guideline development methodology, mental health, neurology, substance use, primary care, public health, epidemiology, and policy making. A review of potential conflicts of interest was carried out in agreement with the WHO handbook [5]. The GDG developed scoping questions and defined outcomes. For each scoping question, evidence was aggregated and synthesized following the GRADE methodology. The evidence profiles were then supplemented by noting values, preferences, and feasibility considerations. Recommendations were subsequently drafted and submitted to the GDG for review, modification, and approval.

Our experience suggests that GRADE may be applied as a useful technical framework for synthesizing and presenting evidence on the effectiveness of clinical interventions. It is a helpful tool to uncover implicit subjectivity, since it requires a systematic, explicit, and judicious approach to interpreting evidence [23]. However, the process may be further improved in the following domains: inclusion of non-randomized evidence and evidence that cannot be meta-summarized and analyzed; better reproducibility and internal consistency; and consideration of the choice of one among several measures for each outcome to reduce the selection bias. Development of recommendations is a complex process that not only involves systematic review and assessment of quality of evidence and balance of benefits and harms, but also explicit consideration of other issues such as value judgments, resource use, and feasibility, which are major considerations. The technicality of GRADE needs to be supplemented by a careful analysis of these additional but essential issues.

Source:

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000322

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.