Assessing and scaling the knowledge pyramid: The good-guideline guide

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 174, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 337-338

  Davis, Dave ^a,b,c,d   Palda, Valerie ^d   Drazin, Yale ^a   Rogers, Jess ^a  

^a ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG TERM CARE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; COCHRANE LIBRARY; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; NOTE; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE;

EID: 32544456764     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.051611     Document Type: Note

References (16)

1. Barnett GO, Barry MI, Robb-Nicholson C, et al. Overcoming information overload: an information system for the primary care physician. Medinfo 2004;11:273-6.
2. Hall A, Walton G. Information overload within the health care system: a literature review. Health Info Libr J 2004;21:102-8.
3. Cartwright I, de Sylva S, Glasgow M, et al. Inaccessible information is useless information: addressing the knowledge gap. J Med Pract Manage 2002;18:36-41.
4. Davenport TH, Glaser J. Just-in-time delivery comes to knowledge management. Harv Bus Rev 2002 Jul;80(7):107-11, 126.
5. Grimshaw J. So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years. CMAJ 2004;171(7):747-9.
6. Mowatt G, Grimshaw JM, Davis DA, et al. Getting evidence into practice: the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care group (EPOC). J Contin Educ Health Prof 2001;21:55-60.
7. Haynes RB. Of studies, summaries, synopses, and systems: the "4S" evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evid Based Ment Health 2001;4:37-9.
8. Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors; Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington: The National Academies Press, 1990.
9. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(Suppl 3):21-35.
10. AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of guidelines, research, and evaluation. Available: www.agreecollaboration.org (accessed 2005 Dec 5).
11. Guidelines Advisory Committee. Recommended clinical practice guidelines. Available: http://gacguidelines.ca (accessed 2005 Dec 5).
12. Clinical practice guidelines and conflict of interest [editorial]. CMAJ 2005;173(11):1297.
13. Abramson I, Starfield B. The effect of conflict of interest on biomedical research and clinical practice guidelines: Can we trust the evidence in evidence-based medicine? J Am Board Fam Pract 2005;18:414-8.
14. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 2002;287:612-7.
15. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 1999;281:1900-5.
16. Graham ID, Calder LA, Herbert PC, et al. A comparison of clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;18:1024-38.