Methodologies for the development of the management of cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report

Chest

Volumn 146, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1395-1402

  Lewis, Sandra Zelman ^a,d   Diekemper, Rebecca L ^a   French, Cynthia T ^b   Gold, Philip M ^c   Irwin, Richard S ^b  

^a CHEST   (United States)

^b UMASS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d EBQ Consulting LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; CHEST GRADING SYSTEM; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; COUGHING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METHODOLOGY; NURSE; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICIAN; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); CONSENSUS; COUGH; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; UNITED STATES;

CONSENSUS; COUGH; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84909996182     PISSN: 00123692     EISSN: 19313543     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1378/chest.14-1484     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. ACCP-NHLBI national conference on antithrombotic therapy. Chest. 1986;89(2-suppl):1S-106S.
2. Lewis SZ, Diekemper R, Ornelas J, Casey KR. Methodologies for the development of CHEST guidelines and expert panel reports. Chest. 2014;146(1):182-192.
3. Irwin RS, Boulet L-P, Cloutier MM, et al. Managing cough as a defense mechanism and as a symptom: a consensus panel report of the American College of Chest Physicians. Chest. 1998;114(2-suppl):133S-181S.
4. American College of Chest Physicians. Diagnosis and management of cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2006;129(1-suppl):1S-292S.
5. Diekemper R, Ireland B, Merz L. P154 development of the documentation and appraisal review tool (Dart) for systematic reviews. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2013;22:61-62.
6. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271-1278.
7. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
8. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377-384.
9. Langer-Gould A, Popat RA, Huang SM, et al. Clinical and demographic predictors of long-term disability in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Arch Neurol. 2006;63(12):1686-1691.
10. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al; European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):1-173.
11. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, eds. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Updated March 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration website. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed September 9, 2013.
12. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.
13. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest. 2006;129(1):174-181.
14. Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2011.