Weighing the Evidence to Formulate Dietary Guidelines

Journal of the American College of Nutrition

Volumn 25, Issue , 2006, Pages 277S-284S

  Woolf, Steven H ^a  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIET; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; STANDARD; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; INTERNAL VALIDITY; METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; POLICY; PROBABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL;

DIET; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS;

EID: 33750125509     PISSN: 07315724     EISSN: 15411087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2006.10719578     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Nestle M: "Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health." Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
2. Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM, Slutsky J, Grimshaw J, Deshpande AM: Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med 139:493-498, 2003.
3. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines: "Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use," Field MJ, Lohr KN (eds). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.
4. Eddy DM: Clinical policies and the quality of clinical practice. N Engl J Med 307:343-347, 1982.
5. Kane RL: Creating practice guidelines: the dangers of overreliance on expert judgment. J Law Med Ethics 23:62-64, 1995.
6. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Developing guidelines. Br Med J 318:593-596, 1999.
7. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WB: Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it is not. Br Med J 312:71-72, 1996.
8. Woolf SH: An organized analytic framework for practice guideline development: using the analytic logic as a guide for reviewing evidence, developing recommendations, and explaining the results. In McCormick KA, Moore SR, Siegel RA (eds): "Clinical Practice Guideline Development: Methodology Perspectives," AHCPR Pub No 95-0009. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, pp 105-113, 1994.
9. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB: Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126:376-380, 1997.
10. L'Abbe´ KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K: Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 107:224-233, 1987.
11. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Goldberg RJ: Clinical recommendations using levels of evidence for antithrombotic agents. Chest 108(4 Suppl):227S-230S, 1995.
12. Elwood JM: "Critical Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials," 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
13. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ: Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 270:2598-2601, 1993.
14. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P: Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12:125-208, 1996.
15. Lenzer J: Alteplase for stroke: money and optimistic claims buttress the "brain attack" campaign. Br Med J 324:723-729, 2002.
16. Spernak SM, Budetti PP, Zweig F: "Use of Language in Clinical Practice Guidelines." Washington DC: Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University, 1992.
17. Woolf SH: Do clinical practice guidelines define good medical care? The need for good science and the disclosure of uncertainty when defining "best practices." Chest 113:166S-171S, 1998.
18. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. Br Med J 318:527-530, 1999.
19. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, Morton SC, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Woolf SH: Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA 286:1461-1467, 2001.
20. Coulter I, Adams A, Shekelle P: Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels: a comparison of a multi- and single disciplinary panel. Health Services Res 30:577-591, 1995.
21. Frazer SM, Pilpel D, Kosecoff J, Brook RH: Effect of panel composition on appropriateness ratings. Int J Quality Health Care 6:251-255, 1994.
22. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, Atkins D: Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med, 20(3S):21-35, 2001.
23. Jadad A: "Randomised Controlled Trials." London: BMJ Books, 1998.
24. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408-412, 1995.
25. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M: The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282:1054-1060, 1999.
26. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP: Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in metaanalyses? Lancet 352:609-613, 1998.
27. Richardson WS, Detsky AS: Users' guides to the medical literature. VII. How to use a clinical decision analysis. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 273:1292-1296, 1995.
28. Gøtzsche PC, Liberati A, Torri V, Rossetti L: Beware of surrogate outcome measures. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 12:238-246, 1996.
29. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Holbrook A, McAlister FA: Users' guides to the medical literature. XIX. Applying clinical trial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points. JAMA 282:771-778, 1999.
30. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds): "Cost- Effectiveness in Health and Medicine." New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
31. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M: Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician 69:548-556, 2004.
32. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Goldberg RJ: Clinical recommendations using levels of evidence for antithrombotic agents. Chest 108(4 Suppl):227S-230S, 1995.
33. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al.: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 328:1490-1497, 2004.