Evidence-based guidelines in laboratory medicine: Principles and methods

Clinical Chemistry

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 806-818

  Oosterhuis, Wytze P ^a,f   Bruns, David E ^b   Watine, Joseph ^c,f   Sandberg, Sverre ^d,f   Horvath, Andrea R ^e,f  

^a CPRLab   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^c HÔPITAL DU BOCAGE   (France)

^d HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SZEGED   (Hungary)

^f IFCC Comm Evidence Based Lab Med   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MONITORING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; TEAMWORK;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; PRACTICE GUIDELINES;

EID: 2142648660     PISSN: 00099147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2003.025528     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Physicians' and patients' choices and evidence-based practice. BMJ 2002;324:1350.
2. Field MJ, Lohr KN, eds. Guidelines for clinical practice. From development to use. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992:426pp.
3. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50: a guideline developers' handbook (February 2001; last updated October 2002). www.show.scot.nhs.uk/sign/guidelines/fulltext/50/index. html (accessed August 2003).
4. Larkin M. Noncompliance with "best practices" may be justifiable. Lancet 2001;358:1433.
5. McQueen MJ. Overview of evidence-based medicine: challenges for evidence-based laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2001;47: 1536-46.
6. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003;49:7-18.
7. AGREE: guideline development in Europe: an international comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:1039-49.
8. Hurwitz B, Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 1999;318:661-4.
9. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318:527-30.
10. Watine J. Are laboratory investigations recommended in current medical practice guidelines supported by available evidence? Clin Chem Lab Med 2002;40:252-5.
11. Lewis SJ. Further disquiet on the guidelines front. Can Med Assoc J 2001;165:180-1.
12. Williams JG. Guidelines for clinical guidelines should distinguish between national and local production. BMJ 1999;318:942.
13. Bossuyt PMM, Lijmer JG, Moi BWJ. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet 2000;356:1844-7.
14. Dufour DR, ed. Laboratory guidelines for screening, diagnosis and monitoring of hepatic injury. Washington: National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry, 2002:75pp. (http://www.nacb.org/lmpg/ hepatic_impg.stm).
15. Price CP. Evidence-based laboratory medicine. Clin Biochem Rev 2001;22:99-109.
16. Beishuizen A, Van Lijf JH, Lekkerkerker JFF, Vermes I. The low dose (1 μg) ACTH stimulation test for assessment of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis. Neth J Med 2000;56:91-9.
17. Lamey PJ, Lamb AB, Prospective study of aetiological factors in burning mouth syndrome. BMJ 1988;296:1243-6.
18. Woolf SH. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II: methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med 1992;152: 946-52.
19. Jackson R, Feder G. Guidelines for clinical guidelines. BMJ 1998;317:427-8.
20. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra, Australia. NHMRC; 1998. http:// www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/ (accessed January 2004).
21. Eccles M, Mason J. How to develop cost-conscious guidelines. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-69.
22. Bruns DE, Oosterhuis WP. From evidence to guidelines. In: Price CP, Christenson R, eds. Evidence-based laboratory medicine - from principles to outcomes. Washington: AACC Press, 2003: 187-207.
23. Field MJ, ed. Setting priorities for clinical practice guidelines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995:176pp.
24. Black N, Donald A. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ 2001;323:275-9.
25. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ 2001;322:98-101.
26. Farmer A. Medical practice guidelines: lessons from the United States. BMJ 1993;307:313-7.
27. Bissell MG. Laboratory-related measures of patient outcomes: an introduction. Washington: AACC Press, 2000:193pp.
28. Bruns DE. Laboratory-related outcomes in health care. Clin Chem 2001;47:1547-52.
29. Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, Haynes RB, Drummond M. A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. Can Med Assoc J 1986;134:587-94.
30. Fielding AM, Powell A. Using Medline to achieve an evidence-based approach to diagnostic clinical biochemistry. Ann Clin Biochem 2002;39:345-50.
31. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994;1:447-58.
32. AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. September 2001. http://www. agreecollaboration. org (accessed January 2004).
33. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JWM. Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ 2002;324:477-80.
34. Knottnerus JA, Muris JW. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. In: Knottnerus JA, ed. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. London: BMJ Books, 2002: 39-59.
35. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The architecture of diagnostic research. BMJ 2002;324:539-41.
36. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645-51.
37. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, Meulen van der JHP et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061-6.
38. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SE, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 47. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockvllle, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2002. http://www.ahrq.gov (accessed January 2004).
39. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews [Abstract]. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25 (http://www. biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/3/25/abstract).
40. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Chem 2003;49:1-6.
41. Battaglia M, Bucher H, Egger M, Mbattagkia H, Bucher M, Egger F, et al. (writing committee). The Bayes Library of Diagnostic Studies and Reviews, 2nd ed. Basel, Switzerland: Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne and Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology, University of Basel, 2002, (Available from daniel.pewsner@bluewin.ch).
42. Lohr KN, Carey TS. Assessing "best evidence": issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1999;25:47D-9.
43. Oosterhuis WP, Niessen RW, Bossuyt PM. The science of systematic reviewing studies of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem Lab Med 2000;38:577-88.
44. Cochrane Methods Working Group on Systematic Review of Screening and Diagnostic Tests. Recommended methods, updated 6 June 1996. www.cochrane.org/ cochrane/sadtdoc1.htm (accessed January 2004).
45. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of the scientific literature. Canberra, Australia: NHMRC, 2000. http:// www.hearth.gov.au/nhmrc/ (accessed January 2004).
46. Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Eowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews: York, England: University of York, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2000.
47. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)] for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 2001;323:334-6.
48. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Grading system for recommendations in evidence-based clinical guidelines. Report of a review of the system for grading recommendations in SIGN guidelines. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, 2000. www.sign.ac.uk/ (accessed January 2004).
49. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CF, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2:1-65.
50. Anonymous. Getting evidence into practice. Eff Health Care Bull 1999;5:1-16.
51. Anonymous. [Guideline development within the Institute for Quality for Healthcare CBO. Guideline for working group members). Utrecht: Institute for Quality for Healthcare CBO, 2000 [in Dutch].