International assessment of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in oncology using the appraisal of guidelines and research and evaluation instrument

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 2004, Pages 2000-2007

  Burgers, J S ^a   Fervers, Béatrice ^a   Haugh, M ^a   Brouwers, M ^a   Browman, G ^a   Philip, T ^a   Cluzeau, F A ^a  

^a FNCLCC   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH; LITERATURE; ONCOLOGY; STANDARD;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW LITERATURE; WORLD HEALTH;

EID: 3042741116     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.157     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318:527-530, 1999
2. Smith TJ, Hillner BE: Ensuring quality cancer care by the use of clinical practice guidelines and critical pathways. J Clin Oncol 19:2886-2897, 2001
3. Woolf SH: Practice guidelines: A new reality in medicine-I. Recent developments. Arch Intern Med 150:1811-1818, 1990
4. Day P, Klein R, Miller F: Hurdles and levers: A comparative US-UK study of guidelines. Nuffield Trust Series No. 4. London, United Kingdom, Nuffield Trust, 1998
5. Ward JE, Grieco V: Why we need guidelines for guidelines: A study of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in Australia. Med J Aust 165:574-576, 1996
6. Graham ID, Beardall S, Carter AO, et al: What is the quality of drug therapy clinical practice guidelines in Canada? CMAJ 165:157-163, 2001
7. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J: Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281:1900-1905, 1999
8. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, et al: Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: The need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355:103-105, 2000
9. The AGREE Collaboration: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. http://www.agreecollaboration.org
10. AGREE Collaboration: Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: The AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 12:18-23, 2003
11. Field MJ, Lohr KN Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Washington DC, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1990
12. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol 15:2149-2156, 1997
13. Cluzeau F, Littlejohns P, Grimshaw J, et al: Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care 11:21-28, 1999
14. Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, et al: Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: Observational study. BMJ 317:858-861, 1998
15. Lohr KN, Field MJ: A provisional instrument for assessing clinical practice guidelines, in Field MJ, Lohr KN (eds): Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1992, pp 346-410
16. Lohr KN. The quality of practice guidelines and the quality of health care, in Selbmann HK (ed): Guidelines in Health Care: Report of a WHO Conference. Baden-Baden, Germany, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1998, pp 42-52
17. Thomson R, Lavender M, Madhok R: How to ensure that guidelines are effective. BMJ 311:237-242, 1995
18. Grol R, Cluzeau FA, Burgers JS: Clinical practice guidelines: Towards better quality guidelines and increased international collaboration. Br J Cancer 89:S4-S8, 2003 (suppl 1)
19. Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, et al: Users' guide to the medical literature: VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines - A. Are the recommendations valid? JAMA 274:570-574, 1995
20. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276:637-639, 1996
21. Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network: Patient involvement in guideline development. http://www.sign.ac.uk/patients/index.html
22. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Patient Involvement Unit for NICE. http://www.nice.org.uk/cat.asp?c=73135
23. Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, Lehmann M, et al: Impact of a clinical guidelines program for breast and colon cancer in a French cancer center. JAMA 278:1591-1595, 1997
24. Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, de Laroche G, et al: A controlled "before-after" study: Impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice. Br J Cancer 86:313-321, 2002
25. Löwy I: Between Bench and Bedside. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1996
26. Abbatucci JS: Long-term experience with multidisciplinary approach in oncology. Rays 8:165-172, 1983
27. Ray MD: Shared borders: Achieving the goals of interdisciplinary patient care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 55:1369-1374, 1998
28. Tripathy D: Multidisciplinary care for breast cancer: Barriers and solutions. Breast J 9:60-63, 2003
29. Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al: The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: The University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer 91:1231-1237, 2001
30. Junor EJ, Hole DJ, Gillis CR: Management of ovarian cancer: Referral to a multidisciplinary team matters. Br J Cancer 70:363-370, 1994
31. Fellings JH: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ed): 1994 ASCO Educational Book. Principles of practice guidelines. Patient outcomes and guidelines. Alexandria, VA, American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1994
32. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 14:671-679, 1996
33. Eisinger F, Geller G, Burke W, et al: Cultural basis for differences between US and French clinical recommendations for women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Lancet 353:919-920, 1999
34. Browman GP: Improving clinical practice guidelines for the 21st century: Attitudinal barriers and not technology are the main challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16:959-968, 2000
35. Burgers JS, Grol R, Klazinga NS, et al: Towards evidence-based clinical practice: An international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Health Care 15:31-45, 2003
36. Pervers B, Philip T, Haugh M, et al: Clinical practice guidelines in Europe: Time for European co-operation for cancer guidelines. Lancet Oncol 4:139-140, 2003
37. Browman G: Background to clinical guidelines in cancer: SOR, a programmatic approach to guideline development and aftercare. Br J Cancer 84:1-3, 2001 (suppl 2)
38. Browman GP, Levine MN, Mohide EA, et al: The practice guidelines development cycle: A conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol 13:502-512, 1995
39. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Brouwers M, et al: Facilitating the use of evidence in practice: Evaluating and adapting clinical practice guidelines for local use by health care organisations. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 31:599-611, 2002
40. Fervers B, Hardy J, Blanc-Vincent MP, et al: SOR: Project methodology. Br J Cancer 84:S8-S16, 2001 (suppl 2)