|
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
JBI Levels of Evidence
The Joanna Briggs Institute, our Collaborating Centres and Evidence Translation Groups currently assign a level of evidence to all conclusions drawn in JBI Systematic Reviews.
The JBI Levels of Evidence are:
| Levels of Evidence | Feasibility F(1-4) | Appropriateness A(1-4) | Meaningfulness M(1-4) | Effectiveness E(1-4) | Economic Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Metasynthesis of research with unequivocal synthesised findings | Metasynthesis of research with unequivocal synthesised findings | Metasynthesis of research with unequivocal synthesised findings | Meta-analysis(with homogeneity) of experimental studies (eg RCT with concealed randomisation) OR One or more large experimental studies with narrow confidence intervals | Metasynthesis (with homogeneity) of evaluations of important alternative interventions comparing all clinically relevant outcomes against appropriate cost measurement, and including a clinically sensible sensitivity analysis |
| 2 | Metasynthesis of research with credible synthesised findings | Metasynthesis of research with credible synthesised findings | Metasynthesis of research with credible synthesised findings | One or more smaller RCTs with wider confidence intervals OR Quasi-experimental studies(without randomisation) | Evaluations of important alternative interventions comparing all clinically relevant outcomes against appropriate cost measurement, and including a clinically sensible sensitivity analysis |
| 3 | a. Metasynthesis of text/opinion with credible synthesised findings
|
a. Metasynthesis of text/opinion with credible synthesised findings
|
a. Metasynthesis of text/opinion with credible synthesised findings
|
a. Cohort studies (with control group)
|
Evaluations of important alternative interventions comparing a limited number of appropriate cost measurement, without a clinically sensible sensitivity analysis |
| 4 | Expert opinion | Expert opinion | Expert opinion | Expert opinion, or physiology bench research, or consensus | Expert opinion, or based on economic theory |
JBI Grading of Recommendations
The Institute also develops and publishes summaries of one or more systematic reviews as “Best Practice: evidence based information sheets for health professionals”. Although these Best Practice do not follow the usual format of clinical practice guidelines, their development follows the processes recommended by the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Collaboration and include recommendations for practice. Recommendations are graded on the basis of both the level of evidence that underpins them and their appropriateness/relevance. The JBI currently uses the following Grades of Recommendations:
| Grade of Recommendations | Feasibility | Appropriateness | Meaningfulness | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. | Strong support that merits application | Strong support that merits application | Strong support that merits application | Strong support that merits application |
| B. | Moderate support that warrants consideration of application | Moderate support that warrants consideration of application | Moderate support that warrants consideration of application | Moderate support that warrants consideration of application |
| C. | Not supported | Not supported | Not supported | Not supported |