Developing clinical guidelines: A challenge to current methods

British Medical Journal

Volumn 331, Issue 7517, 2005, Pages 631-633

  Raine, Rosalind ^a   Sanderson, Colin ^a   Black, Nick ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; CONSENSUS; HUMAN; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CONSENSUS; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 24944462833     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.331.7517.631     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Hume D. A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
2. Janis I. Groupthink. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1982.
3. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999;318:527-30.
4. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-88.
5. Raine R, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N. An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet 2004;354:429-37.
6. Delbecq, Van de Ven A. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci 1971;7:467-92.
7. Bayley EW, Richmond T, Noroian EL, Allen LR. A Delphi study on research priorities for trauma nursing. Am J Crit Care 1994;3:208-16.
8. Brook RH. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. In: McCormick KA, Moore SR, Siegel RA, eds. Clinical practice guidelines development: methodology perspectives. Rockville, MD: Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1994:59-70. (AHCPR publicadon No 95-0009).
9. Rawlins M. NICE work: providing guidance to the British National Health Service. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1383-5.
10. Scott EA, Black N. When does consensus exist in expert panels? J Pub Health 1991;13:35-9.
11. Herrin J, Etchason JA, Kahan JP, Brook RH, Ballard DJ. Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendations. Health Policy 1997;42: 67-81.
12. Fitch K, Lázaro P, Aguilar MD, Martin Y, Bernstein SJ. Physician recommendations for coronary revascularization: variations by clinical specialty. Eur J Pub Health 1999;9:181-7.
13. Bernstein SJ, Lazaro P, Fitch K, Aguialr MD, Kahan JP. Effect of specialty and nationality on panel judgments of the appropriateness of coronary revascuiarization: a pilot study. Med Care 2001;39:513-20.
14. Savoie I, Kazanjian A, Bassett K. Do clinical practice guidelines reflect research evidence? J Health Serv Res Policy 2000;5:76-82.
15. Taffé P, Burnand B, Wietlisbach V, Vader JP. Influence of clinical and economical factors on the expert rating of appropriateness of preoperative use of recombinant erythropoietin in elective orthopedic surgery patients. Med Decis Making 2004;24:122-30.
16. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004;329:224-7.
17. Shekelle P. The appropriateness method. Med Decis Making 2004;24:228-31.
18. Burgers JS, van Everdingen JJ. Beyond the evidence in clinical guidelines. Lancet 2004;364:392-3.