| Recommendation: 1A |
| Benefit vs risk |
| Clear |
| Quality of evidence |
| High: Consistent results from RCTs or observational studies with large effects |
| Comment |
| Strong recommendation, generalizable |
| Recommendation: 1B |
| Benefit vs risk |
| Clear |
| Quality of evidence |
| Moderate: RCTs with limitations and very strong observational studies |
| Comment |
| Strong recommendation; may change with further research |
| Recommendation: 1C |
| Benefit vs risk |
| Clear |
| Quality of evidence |
Low: Observational studies
Very low: Case series, descriptive reports, expert opinion |
| Comment |
| Intermediate recommendation; likely to change with further research |
| Recommendation: 2A |
| Benefit vs risk |
| Balanced or unclear |
| Quality of evidence |
| High: Consistent results from RCTs or observational studies with large effects |
| Comment |
| Intermediate recommendation: May vary with patient values |
| Recommendation: 2B |
| Benefit vs risk |
| Balanced or unclear |
| Quality of evidence |
| Moderate: RCTs with limitations and very strong observational studies |
| Comment |
| Weak recommendation: May vary with patient values |
| Recommendation: 2C |
| Benefit vs risk |
| Balanced or unclear |
| Quality of evidence |
Low: Observational studies
Very low: Case series, descriptive reports, expert opinion |
| Comment |
| Weak recommendation: Alternative treatments may be equally valid |
RCT, Randomized controlled trial.
Adapted from Guyatt G et al