• Sasha Voznyuk, Rachel Z Carter, and Julia Ridley.
• Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
• Palliat Med. 2024 Oct 6: 26921632412866582692163241286658.

BackgroundThe limited palliative care evidence base is poorly amenable to existing grading schemes utilized in guidelines. Many recommendations are based on expert consensus or clinical practice standards, which are often considered 'low-quality' evidence. Reinforcing provider hesitancy in translating recommendations to practice has implications for patient care.AimTo rationalize the selection of an appropriate grading system for rating evidence to support recommendations made in palliative care clinical practice guidelines.DesignReview of the methodology sections of international palliative care guidelines published in English identified five grading systems comparison: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE); the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN); Infectious Diseases Society of America-European Society for Medical Oncology (IDSA-ESMO); Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) and the National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions (NSF-LTC).ResultsThere is heterogeneity among grading systems used in published palliative care or terminal symptom management guidelines. GRADE has been increasingly adopted for its methodological rigour and inter-guideline consistency with other medical associations. CERQual has the potential to support recommendations informed by qualitative evidence, but its role in clinical guidelines is less defined. The IDSA-ESMO system has an intuitive typology with the ability to categorize tiers of lower-quality evidence.ConclusionsIt is challenging to apply commonly used grading systems to the palliative care evidence base, which often lacks robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Adoption of IDSA-ESMO offers a feasible and practical alternative for lower-resourced guideline developers and palliative clinicians without a prerequisite for methodological expertise.

7 keywords...

hide…