Developer site: The content shown here is test data.

MyEClinic
MyEClinic
Health Dictionary AI Health Chat Find an Online Doctor
A serene Zen garden with raked sand and smooth stones, symbolising clarity and calm

Health Dictionary

Reliable, easy-to-read patient information on common medical conditions — written in plain language, free of jargon, and grounded in current evidence. Browse the most frequent diagnoses, understand what they mean for everyday life, and learn which steps and questions help you have a focused conversation with your doctor.

Back to skin conditions

American Diabetes Association

Introduction

Overview

Overview

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) developed a grading system to grade the quality of scientific evidence to support the ADA recommendations for all position statements.

Evidence Grading System

Evidence Grading System

ADA has developed a grading system for leveling the standards of medical care in diabetes.

Level of evidence Desciption
A ❑ Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled trials
that are adequately powered, including
  • Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis

❑ Compelling nonexperimental evidence, i.e., “all or none” rule developed by the

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford

❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials that are

adequately powered, including
  • Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
  • Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
B ❑ Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies
  • Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
  • Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies

❑ Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study

C ❑ Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies
  • Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
  • Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison with historical controls)
  • Evidence from case series or case reports

❑ Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the

recommendation
E ❑ Expert consensus or clinical experience
References

References

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Seyedmahdi Pahlavani, M.D. [2]