Guidelines in context of evidence

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 308-312

  Ketola, Eeva ^a   Kaila, Minna ^b   Honkanen, Mari ^a  

^a Finska Lo karforeningen Duodecim   (Finland)

^b TAMPERE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FINLAND; HUMANS; INTERNET; META-ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 34547919645     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2006.019752     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Shojania KG, Mcdonald KM, Wachter RM, et al. Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies, volume 1 - series overview and methodology. AHRQ Publication No. 04-0051-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, August 2004. http://www.ahrg.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/qualgap1/qualgap1.pdf (accessed 3 June 2006).
2. Staniszewska SH, Henderson L. Patients' evaluations of the quality of care: influencing factors and the importance of engagement. J Adv Nurs 2005;49:530-7.
3. Muir Gray JA. Evidence-biased health care: how to make health policy and management decisions. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2001.
4. Ollenschläger G, Marshall C, Qureshi S, et al. Improving the quality of health care: using international collaboration to inform guideline programmes by founding the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:455-60.
5. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, GRADE Working Group, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4:38.
6. Millenson MM. Beyond the managed care backlash. Medicine in the information age. PPI Policy Report No 1. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute, 1997.
7. Winell K, Kaila M, Mäkelä M. Finnish Current Care guidelines now target tobacco cessation. Suom Lääkäril 2003;58:2983-4.
8. The 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 2003;12:18-23.
9. Ketola E, Toropainen E, Kaila M, et al. Prioritising guideline topics-development and evaluation of a practical tool. J Eval Clin Pract 2006 (in press).
10. Guyatt G, Drummond R, eds. User's guide to the medical literature. Essentials of evidence-based clinical practice. USA: AMA Press, 2002.
11. Burgers JS. Guideline quality and content: are they related? Clin Chem 2006;52:3-4.
12. Elwyn G, Rhydderch M, Edwards A, et al. Assessing organisational development in primary medical care using group assessment: the Maturity Matrix. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:287-94.
13. Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, et al. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998;317:858-61.
14. Michie S, Lester K. Words matter: increasing the implementation of clinical guidelines. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:367-70.
15. Komulainen J, Kunnamo I, Nyberg P, et al. Developing an evidence-based medicine decision support system integrated with EPRs utilizing standard data elements. In: Ten Teije A, Miksch S, Lucas P, eds. Proceedings of the workshop Al techniques in healthcare:evidence-based guidelines and protocols. 28 August - 1 September 2006, Riva del Garda, Italy.