JBJS -- Letters to the Editor for Wright et al., 87 (9) 1909-1910

JBJS welcomes reader comments on published articles. Letters to the Editor are reviewed by JBJS editors but are not peer-reviewed. To submit your letter, please follow the "submit a response" link that appears in the content box at the upper right of the full text of the article.

Letters to the Editor to:

Editorials:
James G. Wright, Thomas A. Einhorn, and James D. Heckman
Grades of Recommendation
J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 1909-1910 [Full text] [PDF]

Letters to the Editor: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

Revised Grades of Recommendation for Summaries or Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgical Studies: James G. Wright, M.D., MPH, FRCSC (21 March 2006)

Drs. Wright, Einhorn, and Heckman respond to Dr. Rama: James G. Wright, M.D., MPH, FRCSC, Thomas A. Einhorn, M.D., James D. Heckman, M.D. (3 October 2005)

Grades of Recommendations: Krishna Reddi Boddu Siva Rama (14 September 2005)

Revised Grades of Recommendation for Summaries or Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgical Studies 21 March 2006

James G. Wright, M.D., MPH, FRCSC,
Member, Evidence Based Practice Committee, AAOS
The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave., Rm 1254, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, CANADA
Send letter to journal:
Re: Revised Grades of Recommendation for Summaries or Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgical Studies

wright{at}sickkids.ca James G. Wright, M.D., MPH, FRCSC

To The Editor:

Grades of recommendation, introduced to readers of The Journal in September 2005, (1), are a method of summarizing the quality of the literature. Grades of Recommendation are used in practice guidelines and in review articles to summarize the evidence on clinical questions.

In response to concerns raised by some that the designation of a Grade-C recommendation was not sufficiently clear, we revised the definition to read: �poor-quality evidence (Level-IV or V studies with consistent findings) for or against recommending intervention.� The amended Grades of Recommendation are presented in Table I. We hope that this minor revision will make the Grades of Recommendation even easier for authors to use.

TABLE I Grades of Recommendation for Summaries or Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgical Studies

A Good evidence (Level-I studies with consistent findings) for or against recommending intervention

B Fair evidence (Level-II or III studies with consistent findings) for or against recommending intervention

C Poor-quality evidence (Level-IV or V studies with consistent findings) for or against recommending intervention

I There is insufficient or conflicting evidence not allowing a recommendation for or against intervention

References:
1. Wright JG, Einhorn TA, Heckman, JD. Grades of Recommendation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1909-10

Drs. Wright, Einhorn, and Heckman respond to Dr. Rama 3 October 2005

James G. Wright, M.D., MPH, FRCSC,
Associate Editor for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Needham, MA 02492,
Thomas A. Einhorn, M.D., James D. Heckman, M.D.
Send letter to journal:
Re: Drs. Wright, Einhorn, and Heckman respond to Dr. Rama

james.wright{at}sickkids.ca James G. Wright, M.D., MPH, FRCSC, et al.

Dr. Rama states that Grades of Recommendation are �simple and useful for the busy clinician�. He is also correct that Grades of Recommendation are built on Levels of Evidence and, thus, are complementary to the efforts of JBJS to promote evidence-based orthopaedics. We appreciate Dr. Rama�s support for Evidence-based Orthopedics and the changes to JBJS.
In response to Dr. Rama�s specific comments, he first points out that if randomized trials have not been performed, then treatment recommendations arising from those studies cannot be Grade A. We agree.
Second, he correctly emphasizes that randomized trials, like all research studies can be generalized only to the specific study population. As such, any treatment recommendations must consider the study populations of interest and extrapolation beyond those studies would constitute expert opinion or Level V Evidence.
Thirdly, he points out that intermediate outcomes such as bacterial counts cannot be extrapolated to other endpoints such as surgical site infection. This is not an issue of Levels of Evidence or Grades of Recommendation but inappropriately extending results beyond conclusions specific to the study.
Finally, he comments on the difficulty of balancing risks and benefits of surgical procedures when evaluating the outcomes of surgical therapy. Although differing valuations of outcomes of surgical trials may lead to contradictory grades, more likely the trials themselves will have contradictory conclusions and hence require consistent Grade C Recommendations.
We thank Dr. Rama for his comments and look forward to wider adoption of Grades of Recommendation wherever orthopaedic review articles are published.

Grades of Recommendations 14 September 2005

Krishna Reddi Boddu Siva Rama,
Clinical Research Fellow
R No: 636, Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Mechanical Engineering,Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ
Send letter to journal:
Re: Grades of Recommendations

r.rama{at}imperial.ac.uk Krishna Reddi Boddu Siva Rama

To the Editor:
The recent introduction of �Grades of Recommendations� for review articles by The Journal is greatly appreciated (1). Such a simple classification will be very useful for a busy orthopaedic surgeon in obtaining guidance about treatment recommendations. Moreover, such a grading standardizes the conclusions of the authors of review articles.
However, the proposed grading system is merely an extrapolation of the �JBJS Levels of Evidence� (2). Henceforth, a few words of caution are necessary for readers before assimilating the grades of recommendation into clinical practice.
First, although randomized controlled trials are widely accepted as the gold standard for obtaining the highest level of evidence, such trials may not be feasible in all instances (3). For example, we may never obtain "Level-I" evidence for the effectiveness of laminar air flow theatres in reducing the infections in major joint arthroplasties and so the grade of recommendation for such an intervention may never be �A� in the proposed grading system.
The second issue is generalizability of the evidence. Results of the randomized controlled trials conducted in a narrow group of patients cannot always be generalized to the wider population. It is essential to clearly define the specific settings and the particular groups of the patients to which the grades of recommendation are applicable.
The third issue is the directness of the evidence. For example, a rise in the bacterial count in the operative field may not necessarily prove an increased risk of infection. It is advisable to provide the directness of the evidence also while stating the grades of recommendations.
Finally, irrespective of the level of evidence and its consistency, a judgment about the balance between the benefits and harms of an intervention must influence the type of recommendation in some instances, and so the recommendation may be more subjective or author dependent. This means that consistent findings of Level-I studies have the potential to lead to contradictory recommendations of high grade (grade A) by different authors.
Such limitations should always be considered by readers while interpreting these grades of recommendations. Nevertheless, this initiative of The Journal in extending its evidence based approach is highly acclaimed.
References:
1. Wright J, Einhorn T, Heckman J. Grades of recommendation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1909-10.
2. http://www.ejbjs.org/misc/public/instrux.shtml#levels (accessed on September 8, 2005)
3. McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, Hu X, Walters BC, Lossing A. Randomized controlled trials in surgery: Issues and problems. Surgery. 1996;119(5):483-6.