Use of evidence-based practice in an aid organisation: A proposal to deal with the variety in terminology and methodology

International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 39-49

  De Buck, Emmy ^a   Pauwels, Nele S ^a   Dieltjens, Tessa ^a   Vandekerckhove, Philippe ^a  

^a Rode Kruis Vlaanderen   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Evidence based practice; Guideline development; Quality of guidelines; Rapid reviews; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

BELGIUM; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMATION SEEKING; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PUBLICATION; RED CROSS;

BELGIUM; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; PUBLICATIONS; RED CROSS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84917738831     PISSN: 17441595     EISSN: 17441609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.XEB.0000444637.88465.a3     Document Type: Note

References (45)

1. Van de Velde S, Broos P, Van BM, et al. European first aid guidelines. Resuscitation 2007; 72: 240-51.
2. Burgers JS, Grol R, Klazinga NS, et al. Towards evidencebased clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15: 31-45.
3. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 2010; 182: E839-42.
4. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 ; www.cochranehandbook. org.
5. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000326.
6. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009; 26: 91-108.
7. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 28.
8. Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, et al. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 114.
9. Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2012; 10: 397-410.
10. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg 2008; 78: 1037-40.
11. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24: 133-9.
12. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 10.
13. Parkhill AF, Clavisi O, Pattuwage L, et al. Searches for evidence mapping: effective, shorter, cheaper. J Med Libr Assoc 2011; 99: 157-60.
14. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 56.
15. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 69.
16. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8: 19-32.
17. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Volume II. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1985.
18. Treadwell JR, Singh S, Talati R, et al. A framework for best evidence approaches can improve the transparency of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65: 1159-62.
19. Van de Velde S, Heselmans A, Roex A, et al. Effectiveness of nonresuscitative first aid training in laypersons: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54: 447-57.
20. De Buck E, Pauwels NS, Dieltjens T, et al. Is blood of uncomplicated hemochromatosis patients safe and effective for blood transfusion? A systematic review. J Hepatol 2012; 57: 1126-34.
21. Cusack L, De Buck E, Compernolle V, Vandekerckhove P. Blood type diets lack supporting evidence: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 2013; 98: 99-104.
22. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318: 527-30.
23. Graham R, Mancher M. WDGSSEe. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
24. Miller J, Petrie J. Development of practice guidelines. Lancet 2000; 355: 82-3.
25. van der Wees P, Qaseem A, Kaila M, et al. Prospective systematic review registration: perspective from the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). Syst Rev 2012; 1: 3.
26. Cruse H, Winiarek M, Marshburn J, et al. Quality and methods of developing practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res 2002; 2: 1.
27. Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N. Developing clinical guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ 2005; 331: 631-3.
28. Sniderman AD, Furberg CD. Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA 2009; 301: 429-31.
29. Oxman AD, Glasziou P, Williams JW Jr. What should clinicians do when faced with conflicting recommendations? BMJ 2008; 337: a2530.
30. Shaneyfelt TM, Centor RM. Reassessment of clinical practice guidelines: go gently into that good night. JAMA 2009; 301: 868-9.
31. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, et al. Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 2000; 355: 103-6.
32. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, et al. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 525-31.
33. Ransohoff DF, Pignone M, Sox HC. How to decide whether a clinical practice guideline is trustworthy. JAMA 2013; 309: 139-40.
34. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490.
35. Giannakakis IA, Haidich AB, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, et al. Citation of randomized evidence in support of guidelines of therapeutic and preventive interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 545-55.
36. Alonso-Coello P, Irfan A, Sola I, et al. The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19: e58.
37. Van de Velde S, De Buck E, Vandekerckhove P, Volmink J. Evidence-based African first aid guidelines and training materials. PLoS Med 2011; 8: e1001059.
38. Dieltjens T, De Buck E, Verstraeten H, et al. Evidence-based recommendations on automated external defibrillator training for children and young people in Flanders- Belgium. Resuscitation 2013; 84: 1304-9.
39. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002; 2: 9.
40. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in EMBASE: an analytic survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12: 481-5.
41. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. BMC Med 2004; 2: 23.
42. Hartling L, Bond K, Harvey K, et al. Developing and testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2010; Dec Report No: 11-EHC007-EF AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care 2010 December.
43. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 719-25.
44. Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Woolf SH. When should clinical guidelines be updated? BMJ 2001; 323: 155-7.
45. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.