Mayo Clinic Health Manager
Get free personalized health guidance for you and your family.
Get Started
close window
Mayo Clinic Housecall
Stay up to date on the latest health information.
What you get
- Free weekly e-newsletter
- Mayo Clinic expertise
- Recipes, tools and other helpful information
- We do not share your e-mail address
Grading rationale
- Grades reflect the level of available scientific evidence in support of the efficacy of a given therapy for a specific indication.
- Expert opinion and folkloric precedent are not included in this assessment, and are reflected in a separate section of each monograph ("Strength of Expert Opinion and Historic/Folkloric Precedent").
- Evidence of harm is considered separately; the below grades apply only to evidence of benefit.
| Level of Evidence Grade | Criteria |
| A (Strong Scientific Evidence) | Statistically significant evidence of benefit from >2 properly randomized trials (RCTs), OR evidence from one properly conducted RCT AND one properly conducted meta-analysis, OR evidence from multiple RCTs with a clear majority of the properly conducted trials showing statistically significant evidence of benefit AND with supporting evidence in basic science, animal studies, or theory. |
| B (Good Scientific Evidence) | Statistically significant evidence of benefit from 1-2 properly randomized trials, OR evidence of benefit from >1 properly conducted meta-analysis OR evidence of benefit from >1 cohort/case-control/non-randomized trials AND with supporting evidence in basic science, animal studies, or theory. |
| C (Unclear or conflicting scientific evidence) | Evidence of benefit from >1 small RCT(s) without adequate size, power, statistical significance, or quality of design by objective criteria,* OR conflicting evidence from multiple RCTs without a clear majority of the properly conducted trials showing evidence of benefit or ineffectiveness, OR evidence of benefit from >1 cohort/case-control/non-randomized trials AND without supporting evidence in basic science, animal studies, or theory, OR evidence of efficacy only from basic science, animal studies, or theory. |
| D (Fair Negative Scientific Evidence) | Statistically significant negative evidence (i.e., lack of evidence of benefit) from cohort/case-control/non-randomized trials, AND evidence in basic science, animal studies, or theory suggesting a lack of benefit. |
| F (Strong Negative Scientific Evidence) | Statistically significant negative evidence (i.e. lack of evidence of benefit) from >1 properly randomized adequately powered trial(s) of high-quality design by objective criteria.* |
| Lack of Evidence† | Unable to evaluate efficacy due to lack of adequate available human data. |
*Objective criteria are derived from validated instruments for evaluating study quality, including the 5-point scale developed by Jadad et al., in which a score below 4 is considered to indicate lesser quality methodologically (Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials 1996; 17[1]:1-12).
† Listed separately in monographs in the "Historical or Theoretical Uses which Lack Sufficient Evidence" section.
