FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023274682> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023274682 endingPage "165" @default.
• W2023274682 startingPage "163" @default.
• W2023274682 abstract "See related article, page 170In this edition of the journal, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) has published its latest clinical guideline regarding fetal blood sampling.1Berry S.M. Stone J. Norton M. Johnson M. Berghella V. Society for Maternal-Fetal MedicineSMFM Clinical Guideline: fetal blood sampling.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209 (170-80)Google Scholar Up to this point, SMFM had been using an evidence grading system outlined by the US Preventive Services Task Force that classified recommendations level A (based on good and consistent scientific evidence), level B (based on limited or inconsistence scientific evidence), and level C (based on expert opinion or consensus). After careful consideration and consultation with experts in the field, the SMFM Publications Committee has adopted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for grading scientific evidence and practice recommendations for SMFM clinical guidelines (Table 1).2Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G. et al.for the GRADE Working GroupRating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926Crossref PubMed Google ScholarTable 1GRADE recommendations2Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G. et al.for the GRADE Working GroupRating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 17UpToDate, grading guide. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide#GradingRecommendations. Accessed March 8, 2013.Google ScholarGrade of recommendationClarity of risk/benefitQuality of supporting evidenceImplications1AStrong recommendation, high-quality evidenceBenefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens, or vice versaConsistent evidence from well-performed randomized, controlled trials or overwhelming evidence of some other form; further research is unlikely to change our confidence in estimate of benefit and risksStrong recommendations, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation; clinicians should follow strong recommendation unless clear and compelling rationale for alternative approach is present1BStrong recommendation, moderate-quality evidenceBenefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens, or vice versaEvidence from randomized, controlled trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise), or very strong evidence of some other research design; further research (if performed) is likely to have impact on our confidence in estimate of benefit and risks and may change estimateStrong recommendation and applies to most patients; clinicians should follow strong recommendation unless clear and compelling rationale for alternative approach is present1CStrong recommendation, low-quality evidenceBenefits appear to outweigh risks and burdens, or vice versaEvidence from observational studies, unsystematic clinical experience, or randomized, controlled trials with serious flaws; any estimate of effect is uncertainStrong recommendation, and applies to most patients; some of evidence base supporting recommendation is, however, of low quality2AWeak recommendation, high-quality evidenceBenefits closely balanced with risks and burdensConsistent evidence from well-performed randomized, controlled trials or overwhelming evidence of some other form; further research is unlikely to change our confidence in estimate of benefit and risksWeak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients or societal values2BWeak recommendation, moderate-quality evidenceBenefits closely balanced with risks and burdens; some uncertainly in estimates of benefits, risks, and burdensEvidence from randomized, controlled trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise), or very strong evidence of some other research design; further research (if performed) is likely to have impact on our confidence in estimate of benefit and risks and may change estimateWeak recommendation, alternative approaches likely to be better for some patients under some circumstances2CWeak recommendation, low-quality evidenceUncertainty in estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens; benefits may be closely balanced with risks and burdensEvidence from observational studies, unsystematic clinical experience, or randomized, controlled trials with serious flaws; any estimate of effect is uncertainVery weak recommendation; other alternatives may be equally reasonableBest practiceRecommendation in which either: (i) there is enormous amount of indirect evidence that clearly justifies strong recommendation–direct evidence would be challenging, and inefficient use of time and resources, to bring together and carefully summarize; or (ii) recommendation to contrary would be unethicalGRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Adapted from UpToDate.17UpToDate, grading guide. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide#GradingRecommendations. Accessed March 8, 2013.Google ScholarSMFM. SMFM adopts GRADE. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013. Open table in a new tab This decision to adopt GRADE was multifactorial: the desire to achieve a singular classification system to improve consistency with other organizations creating guidelines and to address some of the limitations of previous classification systems. This will ultimately benefit clinicians, policy-makers, and patients.Similar to the process for the previously used classification system, GRADE starts with formulating a question in the format of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome.2Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G. et al.for the GRADE Working GroupRating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 3Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE guidelines, 2: framing the question and deciding on important outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 395-400Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1104) Google Scholar, 4Balshem H. Helfand M. Schünemann H.J. et al.GRADE guidelines, 3: rating the quality of evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 401-406Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4069) Google Scholar, 5Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G. et al.GRADE guidelines, 4: rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias).J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 64: 407-415Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1692) Google Scholar, 6Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Montori V. et al.GRADE guidelines, 5: rating the quality of evidence–publication bias.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1277-1282Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1062) Google Scholar, 7Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE guidelines, 6: rating the quality of evidence–imprecision.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1283-1293Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1472) Google Scholar, 8Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE Working GroupGRADE guidelines, 7: rating the quality of evidence–inconsistency.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1290) Google Scholar, 9Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE Working GroupGRADE guidelines, 8: rating the quality of evidence–indirectness.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1303-1310Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1049) Google Scholar, 10Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Sultan S. et al.GRADE Working GroupGRADE guidelines, 9: rating up the quality of evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311-1316Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (782) Google Scholar, 11Bruneti M. Shemilt I. Pregno S. et al.GRADE guidelines, 10: considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 140-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (161) Google Scholar, 12Guyatt G. Oxman A.D. Sultan S. et al.GRADE guidelines, 11: making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 151-157Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar, 13Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Santesso N. et al.GRADE guidelines, 12: preparing summary of findings tables–binary outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 158-172Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (490) Google Scholar, 14Guyatt G.H. Thorlund K. Oxman A.D. et al.GRADE guidelines, 13: preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles–continuous outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 173-183Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (389) Google Scholar, 15Andrews J. Guyatt G. Oxman A.D. et al.GRADE guidelines, 14: going from evidence to recommendations; the significance and presentation of recommendations.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 719-725Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (775) Google Scholar, 16Andrews J.C. Schünemann H.J. Oxman A.D. et al.GRADE guidelines, 15: going from evidence to recommendation–determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 726-735Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (697) Google Scholar, 17UpToDate, grading guide. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide#GradingRecommendations. Accessed March 8, 2013.Google Scholar Once the relevant studies are summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Eventually, the quality of the evidence is categorized as one of the following: high (grade A), moderate (grade B), or low (grade C). Once the evidence is graded, recommendations are made, characterizing them as either strong (grade 1) or weak (grade 2) (Tables 2 and 3).Table 2Quality of evidenceQualityDescriptionHigh-AConsistent evidence from well-performed randomized, controlled trials or overwhelming evidence of some other form; further research is unlikely to change our confidence in estimate of benefit and risksModerate-BEvidence from randomized, controlled trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise), or very strong evidence of some other research design; further research (if performed) is likely to have impact on our confidence in estimate of benefit and risks and may change estimateLow-CEvidence from observational studies, unsystematic clinical experience, or randomized, controlled trials with serious flaws; any estimate of effect is uncertainSMFM. SMFM adopts GRADE. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013. Open table in a new tab Table 3Strength of recommendationStrengthDescription1. StrongBenefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens, or vice versa2. WeakBenefits closely balanced with risks and burdensSMFM. SMFM adopts GRADE. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013. Open table in a new tab Similar to any situation when a new process or approach is undertaken, it is expected there will be a learning curve with GRADE for both the SMFM Publications Committee and those interpreting the guidelines. We believe that in the long term the adoption of GRADE benefits clinicians and policy-makers and thus leads to improvement in the quality of care for our patients. For additional information and resources regarding GRADE, please see http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org. See related article, page 170 See related article, page 170 See related article, page 170 In this edition of the journal, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) has published its latest clinical guideline regarding fetal blood sampling.1Berry S.M. Stone J. Norton M. Johnson M. Berghella V. Society for Maternal-Fetal MedicineSMFM Clinical Guideline: fetal blood sampling.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209 (170-80)Google Scholar Up to this point, SMFM had been using an evidence grading system outlined by the US Preventive Services Task Force that classified recommendations level A (based on good and consistent scientific evidence), level B (based on limited or inconsistence scientific evidence), and level C (based on expert opinion or consensus). After careful consideration and consultation with experts in the field, the SMFM Publications Committee has adopted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for grading scientific evidence and practice recommendations for SMFM clinical guidelines (Table 1).2Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G. et al.for the GRADE Working GroupRating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926Crossref PubMed Google Scholar GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Adapted from UpToDate.17UpToDate, grading guide. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide#GradingRecommendations. Accessed March 8, 2013.Google Scholar SMFM. SMFM adopts GRADE. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013. This decision to adopt GRADE was multifactorial: the desire to achieve a singular classification system to improve consistency with other organizations creating guidelines and to address some of the limitations of previous classification systems. This will ultimately benefit clinicians, policy-makers, and patients. Similar to the process for the previously used classification system, GRADE starts with formulating a question in the format of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome.2Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G. et al.for the GRADE Working GroupRating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 3Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE guidelines, 2: framing the question and deciding on important outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 395-400Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1104) Google Scholar, 4Balshem H. Helfand M. Schünemann H.J. et al.GRADE guidelines, 3: rating the quality of evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 401-406Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4069) Google Scholar, 5Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G. et al.GRADE guidelines, 4: rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias).J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 64: 407-415Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1692) Google Scholar, 6Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Montori V. et al.GRADE guidelines, 5: rating the quality of evidence–publication bias.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1277-1282Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1062) Google Scholar, 7Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE guidelines, 6: rating the quality of evidence–imprecision.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1283-1293Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1472) Google Scholar, 8Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE Working GroupGRADE guidelines, 7: rating the quality of evidence–inconsistency.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1290) Google Scholar, 9Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Kunz R. et al.GRADE Working GroupGRADE guidelines, 8: rating the quality of evidence–indirectness.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1303-1310Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1049) Google Scholar, 10Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Sultan S. et al.GRADE Working GroupGRADE guidelines, 9: rating up the quality of evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311-1316Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (782) Google Scholar, 11Bruneti M. Shemilt I. Pregno S. et al.GRADE guidelines, 10: considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 140-150Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (161) Google Scholar, 12Guyatt G. Oxman A.D. Sultan S. et al.GRADE guidelines, 11: making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 151-157Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar, 13Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Santesso N. et al.GRADE guidelines, 12: preparing summary of findings tables–binary outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 158-172Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (490) Google Scholar, 14Guyatt G.H. Thorlund K. Oxman A.D. et al.GRADE guidelines, 13: preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles–continuous outcomes.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 173-183Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (389) Google Scholar, 15Andrews J. Guyatt G. Oxman A.D. et al.GRADE guidelines, 14: going from evidence to recommendations; the significance and presentation of recommendations.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 719-725Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (775) Google Scholar, 16Andrews J.C. Schünemann H.J. Oxman A.D. et al.GRADE guidelines, 15: going from evidence to recommendation–determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 726-735Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (697) Google Scholar, 17UpToDate, grading guide. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide#GradingRecommendations. Accessed March 8, 2013.Google Scholar Once the relevant studies are summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Eventually, the quality of the evidence is categorized as one of the following: high (grade A), moderate (grade B), or low (grade C). Once the evidence is graded, recommendations are made, characterizing them as either strong (grade 1) or weak (grade 2) (Tables 2 and 3). SMFM. SMFM adopts GRADE. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013. SMFM. SMFM adopts GRADE. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013. Similar to any situation when a new process or approach is undertaken, it is expected there will be a learning curve with GRADE for both the SMFM Publications Committee and those interpreting the guidelines. We believe that in the long term the adoption of GRADE benefits clinicians and policy-makers and thus leads to improvement in the quality of care for our patients. For additional information and resources regarding GRADE, please see http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org. Fetal blood samplingAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 209Issue 3PreviewWe sought to review indications, technical aspects, risks, and recommendations for fetal blood sampling (FBS). Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2023274682 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023274682 creator A5033714165 @default.
• W2023274682 creator A5038657597 @default.
• W2023274682 date "2013-09-01" @default.
• W2023274682 modified "2023-09-22" @default.
• W2023274682 title "SMFM adopts GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) for clinical guidelines" @default.
• W2023274682 cites W1981680557 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W1994824286 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2003178103 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2009326492 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2010149513 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2047586716 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2064347247 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2067661817 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2090132603 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2093043874 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2096074908 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2107021177 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2109346853 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2135400982 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W2165010366 @default.
• W2023274682 cites W3023552461 @default.
• W2023274682 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.012" @default.
• W2023274682 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23978245" @default.
• W2023274682 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2023274682 type Work @default.
• W2023274682 sameAs 2023274682 @default.
• W2023274682 citedByCount "14" @default.
• W2023274682 countsByYear W20232746822016 @default.
• W2023274682 countsByYear W20232746822018 @default.
• W2023274682 countsByYear W20232746822020 @default.
• W2023274682 countsByYear W20232746822021 @default.
• W2023274682 countsByYear W20232746822022 @default.
• W2023274682 countsByYear W20232746822023 @default.
• W2023274682 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023274682 hasAuthorship W2023274682A5033714165 @default.
• W2023274682 hasAuthorship W2023274682A5038657597 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConcept C2777286243 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConceptScore W2023274682C127413603 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConceptScore W2023274682C147176958 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConceptScore W2023274682C19527891 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConceptScore W2023274682C2777286243 @default.
• W2023274682 hasConceptScore W2023274682C71924100 @default.
• W2023274682 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2023274682 hasLocation W20232746821 @default.
• W2023274682 hasLocation W20232746822 @default.
• W2023274682 hasOpenAccess W2023274682 @default.
• W2023274682 hasPrimaryLocation W20232746821 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W1778332165 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W2007752188 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W2397294232 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W2558078775 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W2802718482 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W2890093061 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W4224317962 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W4226227878 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W4313453723 @default.
• W2023274682 hasRelatedWork W4377965848 @default.
• W2023274682 hasVolume "209" @default.
• W2023274682 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2023274682 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2023274682 magId "2023274682" @default.
• W2023274682 workType "article" @default.