Evidence Hierarchy
Mountain Path uses a standardized evidence grading system to help healthcare providers understand the strength of recommendations in clinical protocols.
A
High Quality Evidence
Sources:
- • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs
- • High-quality randomized controlled trials
- • National clinical guidelines (WHO, CDC, etc.)
- • Cochrane reviews
Confidence: Very high - recommendations are strongly supported
B
Moderate Quality Evidence
Sources:
- • Well-designed cohort studies
- • Case-control studies with strong methodology
- • Professional society consensus statements
- • Regional clinical guidelines
Confidence: Moderate - recommendations are reasonably supported
C
Limited/Expert Evidence
Sources:
- • Expert opinion and clinical experience
- • Case series and case reports
- • Local practice guidelines
- • Consensus from clinical committees
Confidence: Limited - recommendations based on expert judgment
How Evidence Grades Are Used
In Protocol Content
- Dosing recommendations tagged with evidence level
- Contraindications marked with supporting evidence
- Treatment alternatives ranked by evidence strength
Clinical Decision Making
- Higher grades indicate stronger recommendations
- Grade C may require additional clinical judgment
- Consider patient-specific factors with all grades
Finding Evidence Information
Evidence grades appear throughout Mountain Path protocols:
Protocol Sections
- • Citations tab: Full references with evidence grades
- • Dosing tables: Evidence tags next to recommendations
- • Contraindications: Evidence level for each restriction
- • Treatment notes: Evidence context for clinical decisions
Important Notes
- • Evidence grades reflect available research at time of protocol creation
- • Lower evidence grades don't mean recommendations are incorrect
- • Clinical judgment should always consider individual patient factors
- • Protocols are regularly updated as new evidence becomes available