Skip to main content
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Journal of clinical epidemiology
  • Gordon Guyatt, McMaster University
  • Andrew D Oxman, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
  • Elie A Akl, State University of New York at Buffalo
  • Regina Kunz, University Hospital Basel
  • Gunn E Vist, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
  • Jan Brozek, McMaster University
  • Susan Norris, Oregon Health & Science University
  • Yngve Falck-Ytter, Case Western Reserve University
  • Paul Glasziou, Bond University
  • Hans deBeer, Dutch Association of Nursing-home Specialists
  • Roman Jaeschke, McMaster University
  • David Rind, Harvard Medical School
  • Joerg Meerpohl, University Medical Center Freiburg
  • Philipp Dahm, University of Florida
  • Holger J Schunemann, McMaster University
Date of this Version
Document Type
Journal Article
Publication Details

Interim status: Citation only.

Guyatt, G., Oxman, A.D., Akl, E., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., deBeer, H., Jaeschke, R., Rind, D., Meerpohl, J., Dahm, P., Schünemann, H.J. (2011). GRADE guidelines 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64(4), 383-394.

Access the publisher's website.

2011 HERDC submission. FoR code: 111700

© Copyright Elsevier Inc., 2011

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and 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. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations.
Citation Information
Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Elie A Akl, Regina Kunz, et al.. "GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables" Journal of clinical epidemiology Vol. 64 Iss. 4 (2011) p. 383 - 394 ISSN: 0895-4356
Available at: