¶ … authored the system? The authors of the system are the GRADE Working Group. In other words, it is a kind of organization that helps the public know of the GRADE approach. The GRADE approach helps build confidence in those that wish to place recommendations and clinical practice guidelines. It is meant as a means of implementing a grading system aptly able to evaluate the quality of evidence along with the caliber of recommendations, thus applied then to a comprehensive range of contexts and interventions.

The authors are meant to present the information from the point-of-view of a guideline user. They write based on expected judgments over the strength and quality of recommendation. How the requirements of such recommendations include strong consideration concerning balance over harms and benefits, quality of evidence, among other things. These things including translation of evidence into particular circumstances, along with the certainty of baseline risk, are all things the guideline user or author consider.

How was the system created? Is it based on the scale used in the GRADE system?

It is based on the GRADE system since the writers are the GRADE working group. The system balanced the requirement of simplicity that mimics the GRADE system as well as fulfills the need for transparent and full consideration...

The authors believe it impractical for individual patients and clinicians to utilize typically clinical practice guidelines as a sole source of support or assessment. Recommendations based on systematic approach, developed by organizations with access to recent information and pertinent evidence should place a better understanding of a clinical problem coupled with research methods and adequate reflection time.
Does the system rank all types of evidence, including qualitative studies and expert opinion?

The study design utilizes four main elements, consistency, directness, study design, and study quality. The study design broadly categorizes randomized trials and observational studies. They include both empirical evidence and logical arguments as support for this. A good example the authors provided was "a discrepancy is the different results of observational studies that suggested hormone replacement therapy decreased the risk of coronary heart disease and subsequent randomised trials that found no reduction in risk and even an increased risk" (Working Group, 2004, p. 1493). Therefore, separation, ranking of evidence along with expert opinion and qualitative studies would be useful in giving better understanding of where to assess and analyze data for recommendations.

What are the benefits and risks…