JNC guidelines classification scheme
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Rim Halaby, M.D. [2]
Overview
The Joint National Committee (JNC) developed a classification system to grade the quality of scientific evidence to support the JNC recommendations for all position statements. However, JNC encourages physicians to individualize treatment depending on the clinical presentation and characteristics of a particular patient scenario in context.[1]
Evidence Quality Rating[1]
| Quality Rating | Type of Evidence |
| High | Well-designed, well-executed randomized clinical trials (RCT) 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 | 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 |
| Low | 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. |
Strength of Recommendation[1]
| Grade | Strength of Recommendation | Explanation |
| A | Strong recommendation | There is high certainty based on evidence that the net benefit is substantial. |
| 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. |
| C | Weak recommendation | There is at least moderate certainty based on evidence that there is a small net benefit. |
| D | Recommendation against | There is at least moderate certainty based on evidence that it has no net benefit or that risks/harms outweigh benefits. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
- Net benefit is defined as benefits minus the risks/harms of the service/intervention.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 James, Paul A.; Oparil, Suzanne; Carter, Barry L.; Cushman, William C.; Dennison-Himmelfarb, Cheryl; Handler, Joel; Lackland, Daniel T.; LeFevre, Michael L.; MacKenzie, Thomas D.; Ogedegbe, Olugbenga; Smith, Sidney C.; Svetkey, Laura P.; Taler, Sandra J.; Townsend, Raymond R.; Wright, Jackson T.; Narva, Andrew S.; Ortiz, Eduardo (2013). "2014 Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults". JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.284427. ISSN 0098-7484.