PMC:7003341 / 8300-11157 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CLO","denotations":[{"id":"T19","span":{"begin":2578,"end":2579},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"}],"text":"The strong recommendation does not always mean there is sufficient intervention effectiveness. Besides the effectiveness of intervention, the forming of recommendations is based on the severity of the disease, patient willingness, safety, and economics [4]. See Tables 1 and 2 [4, 6].\nTable 1 Classification and description of recommendation\nClassification of recommendation Description\nStrong recommendation It is definite that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects or the undesirable effects of an intervention outweigh its desirable effects\nWeak recommendation The desirable effects probably outweigh the undesirable effects or undesirable effects probably outweigh the desirable effects\nTable 2 Rules for grading the recommendations\nStrength of recommendation and quality of evidence Benefit vs. risk and burdens Methodological quality of supporting evidencea Implications\nStrong recommendation, high-quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation\nStrong recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation\nStrong recommendation, low or very low quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa Observational studies or case series Strong recommendation but may change when higher quality evidence becomes available\nWeak recommendation, high-quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values\nWeak recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values\nWeak recommendation, low or very low quality evidence Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks and burden; benefits, risk and burden may be in a closely balanced Observational studies or case series Very weak recommendations; other alternatives may be equally reasonable\nRCTs randomized controlled trials\naThe evidence agreed on by more than 70% frontline clinicians in consensus meeting is viewed as high-quality evidence"}

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T58","span":{"begin":0,"end":94},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T59","span":{"begin":95,"end":257},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T60","span":{"begin":258,"end":284},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T61","span":{"begin":285,"end":341},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T62","span":{"begin":342,"end":386},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T63","span":{"begin":387,"end":579},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T64","span":{"begin":580,"end":726},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T65","span":{"begin":727,"end":772},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T66","span":{"begin":773,"end":912},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T67","span":{"begin":913,"end":1194},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T68","span":{"begin":1195,"end":1553},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T69","span":{"begin":1554,"end":1788},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T70","span":{"begin":1789,"end":2069},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T71","span":{"begin":2070,"end":2427},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T72","span":{"begin":2428,"end":2705},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T73","span":{"begin":2706,"end":2739},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T74","span":{"begin":2740,"end":2857},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"The strong recommendation does not always mean there is sufficient intervention effectiveness. Besides the effectiveness of intervention, the forming of recommendations is based on the severity of the disease, patient willingness, safety, and economics [4]. See Tables 1 and 2 [4, 6].\nTable 1 Classification and description of recommendation\nClassification of recommendation Description\nStrong recommendation It is definite that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects or the undesirable effects of an intervention outweigh its desirable effects\nWeak recommendation The desirable effects probably outweigh the undesirable effects or undesirable effects probably outweigh the desirable effects\nTable 2 Rules for grading the recommendations\nStrength of recommendation and quality of evidence Benefit vs. risk and burdens Methodological quality of supporting evidencea Implications\nStrong recommendation, high-quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation\nStrong recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation\nStrong recommendation, low or very low quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa Observational studies or case series Strong recommendation but may change when higher quality evidence becomes available\nWeak recommendation, high-quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values\nWeak recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values\nWeak recommendation, low or very low quality evidence Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks and burden; benefits, risk and burden may be in a closely balanced Observational studies or case series Very weak recommendations; other alternatives may be equally reasonable\nRCTs randomized controlled trials\naThe evidence agreed on by more than 70% frontline clinicians in consensus meeting is viewed as high-quality evidence"}

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"108","span":{"begin":1144,"end":1152},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"109","span":{"begin":1503,"end":1511},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"110","span":{"begin":2041,"end":2049},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"111","span":{"begin":2399,"end":2407},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"113","span":{"begin":210,"end":217},"obj":"Species"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A108","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"108","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A109","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"109","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A110","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"110","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A111","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"111","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A113","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"113","obj":"Tax:9606"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"Tax","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy/"},{"prefix":"MESH","uri":"https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/"},{"prefix":"Gene","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"CVCL","uri":"https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_"}],"text":"The strong recommendation does not always mean there is sufficient intervention effectiveness. Besides the effectiveness of intervention, the forming of recommendations is based on the severity of the disease, patient willingness, safety, and economics [4]. See Tables 1 and 2 [4, 6].\nTable 1 Classification and description of recommendation\nClassification of recommendation Description\nStrong recommendation It is definite that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects or the undesirable effects of an intervention outweigh its desirable effects\nWeak recommendation The desirable effects probably outweigh the undesirable effects or undesirable effects probably outweigh the desirable effects\nTable 2 Rules for grading the recommendations\nStrength of recommendation and quality of evidence Benefit vs. risk and burdens Methodological quality of supporting evidencea Implications\nStrong recommendation, high-quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation\nStrong recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Strong recommendation, can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation\nStrong recommendation, low or very low quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa Observational studies or case series Strong recommendation but may change when higher quality evidence becomes available\nWeak recommendation, high-quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values\nWeak recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values\nWeak recommendation, low or very low quality evidence Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks and burden; benefits, risk and burden may be in a closely balanced Observational studies or case series Very weak recommendations; other alternatives may be equally reasonable\nRCTs randomized controlled trials\naThe evidence agreed on by more than 70% frontline clinicians in consensus meeting is viewed as high-quality evidence"}