Reference library

Clinical Management Guidelines for Friedreich Ataxia

Search by topic, or type a citation such as 14.2 or 3.1.R1 to go straight to it.

Find it fast

Search the full text of every chapter, or type a citation such as 14.2 or 3.1.R1 to jump straight to it. Each topic opens on its full text, with tabs for recommendations, best practice statements, lay summary, authors, references and methodology.

Browse the full contents →

Reading a recommendation

Strength of recommendation

  • ↑↑ Strong for intervention
  • ↑ Conditional for intervention
  • — Neither intervention nor comparison
  • ↓ Conditional against intervention
  • ↓↓ Strong against intervention

Level of evidence

  • ⨁⨁⨁⨁ High
  • ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
  • ⨁⨁◯◯ Low
  • ⨁◯◯◯ Very low
What do “strong” and “conditional” mean?

What the strength of a recommendation means

The strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which a guideline panel is confident that desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects, or vice versa, across the range of patients for whom the recommendation is intended.

Strong for (↑↑) or against (↓↓) intervention
For patients: Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action and only a small proportion would not.
For clinicians: Most individuals should receive the recommended course of action.

Conditional for (↑) or against (↓) intervention
For patients: The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not.
For clinicians: Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for different patients, and that you must help each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with her or his values and preferences.

Neither intervention nor comparison (—)
The panel did not recommend for or against the intervention.

Source: GRADE Handbook, section 6.1, Table 6.1 (GRADE uses “weak” and “conditional” interchangeably).

Cite, share and print

Every chapter, topic and recommendation has a permanent short link (for example /c/14.2.R1) that keeps working if the guidelines are renumbered. Use Copy link or Copy citation on any page, print a topic with every tab expanded, or download the full chapter PDF.

About the guidelines

Introduction

Despite significant progress in the search for disease modifying agents, the chronic, progressive nature of Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) continues to have a profound impact on the health and well-being of affected individuals. As for those living with other rare diseases, individuals with FRDA often find it difficult to access expert specialist multi-disciplinary care for long-term, evidence-based management. In response to this need, the Consensus Clinical Management Guidelines for Friedreich Ataxia were developed and published in 20141. Since this time, some new evidence in managing FRDA has emerged warranting an update of the Clinical Management Guidelines (CMGs), but the challenges of developing guidelines for rare diseases remain. In particular, the lack of adequately powered studies means that many management recommendations are based on low-certainty evidence. Deciding to update the guidelines provided an opportunity to consider alternative methods of grading the evidence and establishing the strength of the recommendations, to help overcome some of these challenges.

In 2019, the RARE-Bestpractices Working Group published a framework for developing guidelines in rare diseases using the robust Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) system2, which was adopted for this iteration of the Friedreich ataxia CMGs. In this approach, the GRADE system is supplemented with three strategies specific to rare diseases: a) reviewing and including literature in like conditions, thus providing “Indirect evidence”, b) the systematic collection of expert clinical observations and/or patient perceptions via bespoke “structured observation forms” and, c) the use of available clinical registry data. Moreover, the GRADE framework ensures a transparent and dynamic process of continual updating of the recommendations as new evidence emerges.

Help us improve the guidelines

Spotted something out of date, or have a suggestion for the next update? Send it to the guidelines team.