ブックタイトルカテーテル関連尿路感染の予防のためのCDCガイドライン 2009｜株式会社メディコン

概要

カテーテル関連尿路感染の予防のためのCDCガイドライン 2009｜株式会社メディコン

Table 4. Formulating RecommendationsWeighing Benefits andHICPAC Recommendation Harms for CriticalOutcomesQuality of EvidenceSTRONG (I)Interventions with net benefitsor net harmsIA ? High to ModerateIB ? Low orVery Low (Accepted Practice)IC ? High to Very Low(Regulatory)WEAK (II)No recommendation/unresolved issueInteventions with trade offsbetween benefits and harmsUncertain trade offs betweenbenefits and harmsHigh to Very LowLow to Very LowFor Category I recommendations, levels A and B represent the quality of the evidence underlyingthe recommendation, with A representing high to moderate quality evidence and B representinglow quality evidence or, in the case of an established standard (e.g., aseptic technique, educationand training), very low quality to no evidence based on our literature review. For IBrecommendations, although there may be low to very low quality or even no available evidencedirectly supporting the benefits of the intervention, the theoretical benefits are clear, and thetheoretical risks are marginal. Level C represents practices required by state or federal regulation,regardless of the quality of evidence. It is important to note that the strength of a Category IArecommendation is equivalent to that of a Category IB or IC recommendation; it is only the qualityof the evidence underlying the IA recommendation that makes it different from a IB.原In some instances, multiple recommendations emerged from a single narrative evidencesummary. The new HICPAC categorization scheme for recommendations is provided in Table 1,which is reproduced below.文Table 1. Modified HICPAC Categorization Scheme for RecommendationsCategory IAA strong recommendation supported by high to moderate quality evidencesuggesting net clinical benefits or harmsCategory IBA strong recommendation supported by low quality evidence suggesting netclinical benefits or harms or an accepted practice (e.g., aseptic technique)supported by low to very low quality evidenceCategory ICA strong recommendation required by state or federal regulation.Category IIA weak recommendation supported by any quality evidence suggesting atrade off between clinical benefits and harmsNo recommendation/unresolved issueUnresolved issue for which there is low to very low quality evidence withuncertain trade offs between benefits and harms80 < 原文 > VII. Methods