Definitions for the level of evidence, strength of recommendation, and net benefit follow the "Major Recommendations."
- In patients with immune deficiency, the initial diagnostic algorithm for patients with acute, subacute, and chronic cough is the same as that for immunocompetent persons, taking into account an expanded list of differential diagnoses that considers the type and severity of immune defect and geographic factors. Level of evidence, expert opinion; benefit, substantial; grade of recommendation, E/A
- In human immunodeficiency (HIV)-infected patients, CD4+ lymphocyte counts should be used in constructing the list of differential diagnostic possibilities potentially causing cough. Level of evidence, low; benefit, substantial; grade of recommendation, B
- HIV-infected patients with CD4+ lymphocyte counts of <200 cells/microL or those patients with counts of >200 cells/microL with unexplained fever, weight loss, or thrush who have unexplained cough should be suspected of having Pneumocystis pneumonia, tuberculosis, and other opportunistic infections, and should be evaluated accordingly. Level of evidence, low; benefit, substantial; grade of recommendation, B
Definitions:
Quality of the Evidence
Good = evidence is based on good randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or meta-analyses
Fair = evidence is based on other controlled trials or RCTs with minor flaws
Low = evidence is based on nonrandomized, case-control, or other observational studies
Expert opinion = evidence is based on the consensus of the carefully selected panel of experts in the topic field. There are no studies that meet the criteria for inclusion in the literature review.
Strength of Recommendations
A = strong recommendation
B = moderate recommendation
C = weak recommendation
D = negative recommendation
I = no recommendation possible (inconclusive)
E/A = strong recommendation based on expert opinion only
E/B = moderate recommendation based on expert opinion only
E/C = weak recommendation based on expert opinion only
E/D = negative recommendation based on expert opinion only
Net Benefit
Substantial = There is evidence of benefit that clearly exceeds the minimum clinically significant benefit and evidence of little harm
Intermediate = Clear evidence of benefit but with some evidence of harms, with a net benefit between that defined for "substantial" and "small/weak"
Small/weak = There is evidence of a benefit that may not clearly exceed the minimum clinically significant benefit, or there is evidence of harms that substantially reduce (but do not eliminate) the benefit such that it may not clearly exceed the minimum clinically significant benefit
None = Evidence shows that either there is no benefit or the benefits equal the harms
Conflicting = Evidence is inconsistent with regard to benefits and/or harms such that the net benefit is uncertain
Negative = Expected harms exceed the expected benefits to the population
Table: Relationship of Strength of the Recommendations Scale to Quality of Evidence and Net Benefits
|
Net Benefit |
Quality of Evidence |
Substantial |
Intermediate |
Small/Weak |
None |
Conflicting |
Negative |
Good |
A |
A |
B |
D |
I |
D |
Fair |
A |
B |
C |
D |
I |
D |
Low |
B |
B |
C |
I |
I |
D |
Expert Opinion |
E/A |
E/B |
E/C |
I |
I |
E/D |