Hierarchy of evidence and appraisal of limitations (HEAL) grading system

P. Cristian Gugiu

Evaluation and Program Planning, 2015, vol. 48, issue C, 149-159

Abstract: Despite more than 30 years of effort that has been dedicated to the improvement of grading systems for evaluating the quality of research study designs considerable shortcomings continue. These shortcomings include the failure to define key terms, provide a comprehensive list of design flaws, demonstrate the reliability of such grading systems, properly value non-randomized controlled trials, and develop theoretically-derived systems for penalizing and promoting the evidence generated by a study. Consequently, in light of the importance of grading guidelines in evidence-based medicine, steps must be taken to remedy these deficiencies. This article presents two methods – a grading system and a measure of methodological bias – for evaluating the quality of evidence produced by an efficacy study.

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718914000913
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:epplan:v:48:y:2015:i:c:p:149-159

DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.08.003

Access Statistics for this article

Evaluation and Program Planning is currently edited by Jonathan A. Morell

More articles in Evaluation and Program Planning from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().