JSC Recommendations Flashcards
High Quality Rating
Well-designed, well-executed RCTs that adequately represent populations to which the results are applied and directly
assess effects on health outcomes
Well-conducted meta-analyses of such studies
Highly certain about the estimate of effect; further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
High Quality Rating
Well-designed, well-executed RCTs that adequately represent populations to which the results are applied and directly
assess effects on health outcomes
Well-conducted meta-analyses of such studies
Highly certain about the estimate of effect; further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate Quality Rating
RCTs with minor limitations affecting confidence in, or applicability of, the results
Well-designed, well-executed non–randomized controlled studies and well-designed, well-executed observational studies
Well-conducted meta-analyses of such studies
Moderately certain about the estimate of effect; further research may have an impact on our confidence in the estimate
of effect and may change the estimate
Lowe Quality Rating
RCTs with major limitations
Non–randomized controlled studies and observational studies with major limitations affecting confidence in,
or applicability of, the results
Uncontrolled clinical observations without an appropriate comparison group (eg, case series, case reports)
Physiological studies in humans
Meta-analyses of such studies
Low certainty about the estimate of effect; further research is likely to have an impact on our confidence in the estimate
of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Grade A
Strong Recommendation
There is high certainty based on evidence that the net benefita is substantial.
Grade B
Moderate Recommendation
There is moderate certainty based on evidence that the net benefit is moderate to substantial or there is high
certainty that the net benefit is moderate.
Grade C
Weak Recommendation
There is at least moderate certainty based on evidence that there is a small net benefit.
Grade D
Recommendation against
There is at least moderate certainty based on evidence that it has no net benefit or that risks/harms outweigh
benefits.
Grade E
Expert Opinion (“There is insufficient evidence or evidence is unclear or conflicting, but this is what the
committee recommends.”)
Net benefit is unclear. Balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined because of no evidence, insufficient
evidence, unclear evidence, or conflicting evidence, but the committee thought it was important to
provide clinical guidance and make a recommendation. Further research is recommended in this area.
Grade N
No Recommendation for or against (“There is insufficient evidence or evidence is unclear or conflicting.”)
Net benefit is unclear. Balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined because of no evidence, insufficient
evidence, unclear evidence, or conflicting evidence, and the committee thought no recommendation
should be made. Further research is recommended in this area.
Recommendation 1
In the general population aged 60 years, initiate pharmacologic treatment
to lower blood pressure (BP) at systolic blood pressure (SBP)150
mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP)90mmHg and treat to a goal
SBP
corollary recommendation
In the general population aged60years, if pharmacologic treatment for
high BP results in lower achieved SBP (eg,
recommendation2
In the general population 90mmHg and treat to a goalDBP
Recommendation 3
In the general population 140mmHg and treat to a goal SBP
Recommendation 4
In the population aged 18 years with chronic kidney disease (CKD), initiate
pharmacologic treatment to lowerBPatSBP140mmHgorDBP90
mmHgandtreat to goalSBP