Table 1 ACCP classification criteria for grading evidence in clinical guideline
From: Cold burn injuries in the UK: the 11-year experience of a tertiary burns centre
Grade | Description | Benefits vs. risks and burdens | Methodological quality of supporting evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
1A | Strong recommendations, high-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens or vice versa | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies |
1B | Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens or vise versa | RCTs with important limitations or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies |
1C | Strong recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens or vise versa | Observational studies or case series |
2A | Weak recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies |
2B | Weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens | RCTs with important limitations or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies |
2C | Weak recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Uncertainty in the estimates and burden; benefits, risks and burden may be closely balanced | Observational studies or case series |