2024 Revision of the level of evidence grading system for ESC clinical practice guideline recommendations I: therapy and prevention
- 21 March 2025
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Heart Journal
- Vol. 46 (20) , 1885-1894
Abstract
The level of evidence (LOE) grading system for ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines classifies the quality of the evidence supporting a recommendation. However, the current taxonomy does not fully consider the optimal study design necessary to establish evidence for such recommendations. Therefore, two separate taskforces of clinical and methodological experts were appointed by the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee, with the first tasked with updating the LOE grading system for therapy and prevention, and the second responsible for developing a LOE grading system for diagnosis and prediction. The updated system for therapy and prevention presented here maintains the three-level grading structure but uses revised definitions. Level of evidence A represents conclusive evidence usually from ≥2 adequately powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) free from major bias, with substantial evidence against the play of chance when combined in a meta-analysis (e.g. P < .005 for superiority). Additional criteria are specified to define substantial evidence against the play of chance in case of non-inferiority, equivalence, and harm. Level of evidence B is now subdivided into B1 and B2. Level of evidence B1 represents suggestive evidence usually from ≥1 adequately powered RCT free from major bias, or a meta-analysis of such RCTs, with some evidence against the play of chance (e.g. P < .05 for superiority). Level of evidence B2 represents limited evidence from ≥2 adequately powered non-randomized studies with careful control of major sources of bias or from a meta-analysis of small, underpowered RCTs. Level of evidence C represents preliminary evidence from either non-randomized studies without careful control of major sources of bias, a single small, underpowered RCT, or expert consensus.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- The scale of scientific evidence behind the current ESC clinical guidelinesIJC Heart & Vasculature, 2023
- The Proposal to Lower P Value Thresholds to .005JAMA, 2018
- ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2016
- Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial FibrillationNew England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Bivalirudin during Primary PCI in Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence?The Lancet, 2004
- Management of acute coronary syndromes: acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST segment elevation. Recommendations of the Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology Recommendations of the Task Force of the European Society of CardiologyEuropean Heart Journal, 2000
- Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor strokeThe Lancet, 1993
- Publication bias in clinical researchThe Lancet, 1991
- Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials?Statistics in Medicine, 1984