A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study (such as a case report for an individual patient or a blinded randomized controlled trial) and the endpoints measured (such as survival or quality of life) affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the least relevant evidence is expert opinion, including consensus of such. Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).
Level of evidence in the context of Systematic review
A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic (in the scientific literature), then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine. Systematic reviews, sometimes along with meta-analyses, are generally considered the highest level of evidence in medical research.
While a systematic review may be applied in the biomedical or health care context, it may also be used where an assessment of a precisely defined subject can advance understanding in a field of research. A systematic review may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.
View the full Wikipedia page for Systematic reviewLevel of evidence in the context of List of IARC Group 2B carcinogens
IARC group 2B substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances are those that have been classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent, mixture, or exposure circumstance with inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but limited evidence in experimental animals, combined with supporting evidence from other relevant data, may be included in this group.
This list focuses on the hazard linked to the agents. This means that the carcinogenic agents are capable of causing cancer, but this does not take their risk into account, which is the probability of causing a cancer given the level of exposure to this carcinogenic agent. The list is up to date as of January 2024.
View the full Wikipedia page for List of IARC Group 2B carcinogensLevel of evidence in the context of IARC group 1
IARC group 1 Carcinogens are substances, chemical mixtures, and exposure circumstances which have been classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent (chemical mixture) may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient, but when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent (mixture) acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.
This list focuses on the hazard linked to the agents. This means that while carcinogens are capable of causing cancer, it does not take their risk into account, which is the probability of causing a cancer, given the level of exposure to this carcinogen.The list is up to date as of January 2024.
View the full Wikipedia page for IARC group 1Level of evidence in the context of List of IARC Group 2A carcinogens
IARC group 2A agents are substances and exposure circumstances that have been classified as probable carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This designation is applied when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, as well as sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this group when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans along with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this group solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
This list is focusing on the hazard linked to the agents. This means that the carcinogenic agents are capable of causing cancer, but this does not take their risk into account, which is the probability of causing a cancer given the level of exposure to this carcinogenic agent. The list is uptodate as of January 2024.
View the full Wikipedia page for List of IARC Group 2A carcinogens