Urogenital Tract Infection

Indexed in /covered by CAS, KoreaScience & DOI/Crossref:eISSN 2012-1234   pISSN 2465-8243

Table. 3.

Table. 3.

Examples of implications of strong and weak recommendations

Strong recommendation for intervention

For patients—Most people in this situation would want the recommended course of action, and only a small proportion would not

For clinicians—Most people should receive the intervention

For quality monitors—Adherence to this recommendation could be used as a quality criterion or performance indicator. If clinicians choose not to follow such a recommendation, they should document their rationale

Weak recommendation for intervention

For patients—Most people in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not

For clinicians—Examine the evidence or a summary of the evidence yourself and be prepared to discuss that evidence with patients, as well as their values and preferences

For quality monitors—Clinicians’ discussion or consideration of the pros and cons of the intervention, and their documentation of the discussion, could be used as a quality criterion

No specific recommendation

The advantages and disadvantages are equivalent

The target population has not been identified

Insufficient evidence on which to formulate a recommendation

Adapted from the article of Jaeschke et al. BMJ 2008;337:a744 [16].

See Appendix 3 (complete translate in Korean).

Urogenit Tract Infect 2020;15:83-9 https://doi.org/10.14777/uti.2020.15.3.83
© 2020 Urogenit Tract Infect