6.2 Grading recommendations The recommendations included in this guidance are based on information from all relevant sources of scientific knowledge on each topic. A grade for each recommendation was determined using the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) matrix and grading system [6, 7].
Consensus-based recommendations were developed using the nominal group technique in the working party meetings [8]. Given the complexity of the topics, for some recommendations the NHMRC grading system was adapted to conservatively incorporate qualitative research. Single case studies were not included in the grading of recommendations. Refer to Table 1 for descriptions of the grades applied to recommendations.
Table 1 Grade of recommendation Grade A
B
B
Description Body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice.
•
One or more level I or several level II studies with low risk of bias, and all studies are consistent or inconsistency can be explained
• • •
Clinical impact is very large Applicable to the Australian health care context with few caveats
Body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice in most situations.
Q
•
One or two level II studies with low risk of bias, or a systematic review or multiple level II studies with low risk of bias, with most studies consistent or inconsistencies can be explained
• • •
Clinical impact is substantial
C
C
Populations studied in the body of evidence are similar to the guidance population Applicable to the Australian health care context with few caveats
Body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice in most situations.
• •
As above for quantitative studies Qualitative studies included in the body of evidence; one or more qualitative studies of high quality and rigour (credibility, transferability, dependability, conformability)
Body of evidence provides some support for recommendation(s); however, care should be taken in its application to individual clinical and organisational circumstances.
Q
• • • •
One or two level II studies with low risk of bias, or level I or II studies with a moderate risk of bias
•
Applicable to the Australian health care context with some caveats
D
Clinical impact is moderate Populations studied in the body of evidence differ from the guideline population, but it is sensible to apply the evidence to the guidance population
As above for quantitative studies Qualitative studies included in the body of evidence; one or more qualitative studies of high quality and rigour (credibility, transferability, dependability, conformability)
Body of evidence is weak and recommendation must be applied with caution.
• • • • Consensus
Some inconsistency reflecting some uncertainty
Body of evidence provides some support for recommendation(s); however, care should be taken in its application to individual clinical and organisational circumstances.
• •
LC0063_Guidance_on_the_support_pathway_v10
Populations studied in the body of evidence are similar to the guidance population
Level IV studies, or level I to II studies or systematic reviews with a high risk of bias Evidence is inconsistent Clinical impact is slight Populations studied in the body of evidence differ from the guideline population, and hard to judge whether it is sensible to apply evidence to the guidance population
Consensus-based recommendation
•
A systematic literature search was conducted. The recommendation was developed using the discovery and observational research available, plus contextual, expert and experiential knowledge to reach a consensus on the recommendation.
© icareTM | Insurance and Care NSW 2021
12 of 88
icare Guidance for people with a limb amputation 2021
