Dataset Information

Quality and methods of developing practice guidelines.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:It is not known whether there are differences in the quality and recommendations between evidence-based (EB) and consensus-based (CB) guidelines. We used breast cancer guidelines as a case study to assess for these differences. METHODS:Five different instruments to evaluate the quality of guidelines were identified by a literature search. We also searched MEDLINE and the Internet to locate 8 breast cancer guidelines. These guidelines were classified in three categories: evidence based, consensus based and consensus based with no explicit consideration of evidence (CB-EB). Each guideline was evaluated by three of the authors using each of the instruments. For each guideline we assessed the agreement among 14 decision points which were selected from the NCCN (National Cancer Comprehensive Network) guidelines algorithm. For each decision point we recorded the level of the quality of the information used to support it. A regression analysis was performed to assess if the percentage of high quality evidence used in the guidelines development was related to the overall quality of the guidelines. RESULTS:Three guidelines were classified as EB, three as CB-EB and two as CB. The EB guidelines scored better than CB, with the CB-EB scoring in the middle among all instruments for guidelines quality assessment. No major disagreement in recommendations was detected among the guidelines regardless of the method used for development, but the EB guidelines had a better agreement with the benchmark guideline for any decision point. When the source of evidence used to support decision were of high quality, we found a higher level of full agreement among the guidelines' recommendations. Up to 94% of variation in the quality score among guidelines could be explained by the quality of evidence used for guidelines development. CONCLUSION:EB guidelines have a better quality than CB guidelines and CB-EB guidelines. Explicit use of high quality evidence can lead to a better agreement among recommendations. However, no major disagreement among guidelines was noted regardless of the method for their development.

SUBMITTER: Cruse H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC65517 | biostudies-literature | 2002

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality and methods of developing practice guidelines.

Cruse Hugh H Winiarek Magdalena M Marshburn Jan J Clark Otavio O Djulbegovic Benjamin B

BMC health services research 20020111

<h4>Background</h4>It is not known whether there are differences in the quality and recommendations between evidence-based (EB) and consensus-based (CB) guidelines. We used breast cancer guidelines as a case study to assess for these differences.<h4>Methods</h4>Five different instruments to evaluate the quality of guidelines were identified by a literature search. We also searched MEDLINE and the Internet to locate 8 breast cancer guidelines. These guidelines were classified in three categories: ...[more]

PMID: 11825346

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality. DESIGN:Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies.Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a 'Rigour of Development' domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. DATA SOURCES:Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search. RESULTS:3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II 'Rigour' scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (mean 80.1%, range 64-100%) and 'Clarity and Presentation' (mean 76.7%, range 38-97%). The lowest rating domains were 'Applicability' (mean 48.7%, range 8-81%) and 'Editorial Independence' (mean 53%, range 2-90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the 'Applicability' domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS:Delirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Migrants may carry with them communicable and non communicable diseases as they move to the host country. Screening migrants may help in improving their health status and in preventing the spread of infections to the host population. OBJECTIVE:To identify and assess the quality of published practice guidelines addressing migrants' health. METHODS:We included practice guidelines addressing migrants' health at the clinical, public health or health systems levels. We searched Medline, Embase, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the Canadian Medical Association's Clinical Practice Guidelines Database. Two teams of two reviewers conducted in duplicate and independent manner study selection, data abstraction, assessment of the guideline quality (using the AGREE II instrument), and assessment of the quality of the reporting (using the RIGHT statement). RESULTS:Out of 2732 citations captured by the electronic search, we included 24 eligible practice guidelines, all addressing the level of post-arrival to the host country and published between 2011 and 2017. The majority of guidelines (57%) addressed non-communicable diseases, 95% addressed screening, while 52% addressed prevention and treatment respectively. The majority of the guidelines reported their funding sources. 86% used the GRADE approach as part of the development process. The included guidelines scored high on the majority of the items, and low on the following two domains of the AGREE II instrument: rigor of development and applicability. The mean number of the RIGHT checklist items met by the included guidelines was 27, out of a total of 35. Most of the guidelines were based on systematic reviews (95.6%). A minority of the included guidelines (26%) reported considering the values and preferences of the target populations or the costs and resource implications (30%) in the formulation of recommendations. CONCLUSION:We identified 23 practice guidelines addressing migrants' health, the majority of which addressed screening services. The vast majority of the captured guidelines targeted screening because the population of interest is migrants, meaning that the intention of the guidelines is to deal with additional factors than usual ones, such as prevalence of disease in country of origin, endemic diseases and others. The guidelines suffered limitations on two quality domains (rigor of development and applicability), and have room for improvement of their reporting.

Project description:IntroductionAssessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations.MethodsGuidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder.ResultsOf the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines.ConclusionsHigh quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

Dataset Information

Quality and methods of developing practice guidelines.

Publications

Quality and methods of developing practice guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets