ADA evidence-grading system for “St

ADA evidence-grading system for “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes”
Level of
evidence Description
A Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled
trials that are adequately powered, including
c Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
c Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the
analysis
Compelling nonexperimental evidence; i.e., “all or none” rule developed by
the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford
Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials that
are adequately powered, including
c Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
c Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the
analysis
B Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies
c Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
c Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies
Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study
C Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies
c Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or three
or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
c Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as
case series with comparison with historical controls)
c Evidence from case series or case reports
Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the
recommendation
E Expert consensus or clinical experience

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

ADA evidence-grading system for “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes”Level ofevidence DescriptionA Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlledtrials that are adequately powered, includingc Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trialc Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in theanalysisCompelling nonexperimental evidence; i.e., “all or none” rule developed bythe Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of OxfordSupportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials thatare adequately powered, includingc Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutionsc Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in theanalysisB Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studiesc Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registryc Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studiesSupportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control studyC Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studiesc Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or threeor more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the resultsc Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such ascase series with comparison with historical controls)c Evidence from case series or case reportsConflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting therekomendasiKonsensus E ahli atau pengalaman klinis

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

ADA sistem bukti-grading "Standar Pelayanan Medik di Diabetes"
Tingkat
bukti Keterangan
A Batal bukti dari sumur-dilakukan, digeneralisasikan acak terkontrol
uji coba yang didukung memadai, termasuk
c Bukti dari sumur-dilakukan multicenter percobaan
c Bukti dari meta -Analisis yang menggabungkan penilaian kualitas dalam
analisis
bukti nonexperimental Compelling; yaitu, "semua atau tidak ada" aturan yang dikembangkan oleh
Pusat Kedokteran Bukti Berbasis di Universitas Oxford
bukti pendukung dari sumur-dilakukan percobaan terkontrol acak yang
didukung memadai, termasuk
c Bukti dari percobaan baik dilakukan pada satu atau lebih lembaga
c Bukti dari meta-analisis yang menggabungkan penilaian kualitas dalam
analisis
bukti yang mendukung B dari studi kohort baik dilakukan
c Bukti dari sumur-dilakukan penelitian kohort prospektif atau registry
c Bukti dari sumur-dilakukan meta-analisis studi kohort
bukti pendukung dari sumur-dilakukan studi kasus-kontrol
C bukti pendukung dari studi terkontrol atau tidak terkendali
c Bukti dari uji klinis acak dengan satu atau lebih besar atau tiga
atau lebih kecil kelemahan metodologis yang dapat membatalkan hasil
c Bukti dari studi observasional dengan potensi tinggi untuk Bias (seperti
serangkaian kasus dengan perbandingan dengan kontrol sejarah)
c Bukti dari serangkaian kasus atau laporan kasus
bukti yang bertentangan dengan bobot bukti yang mendukung
rekomendasi
E Ahli konsensus atau pengalaman klinis