2014 Update of the EULAR standardised operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 8-13

  Van Der Heijde, Désirée ^a   Aletaha, Daniel ^b   Carmona, Loreto ^c   Edwards, Christopher J ^d,e   Kvien, Tore K ^f   Kouloumas, Marios ^g   Machado, Pedro ^a,h   Oliver, Sue ⁱ   De Wit, Maarten ^g   Dougados, Maxime ^j,k  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^c Institute for Health   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f DIAKONHJEMMET HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^g EULAR Standing Committee of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe (PARE)   (Switzerland)

^h CENTRO HOSPITALAR E UNIVERSITÁRIO DE COIMBRA   (Portugal)

ⁱ Rheumatology Department Paris Descartes University Cochin Hospital ^*  (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^k PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; EUROPE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; STANDARDIZATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; RHEUMATOLOGY;

EUROPE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RHEUMATOLOGY; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 84918810850     PISSN: 00034967     EISSN: 14682060     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206350     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Dougados M, Betteridge N, Burmester GR, et al. EULAR standardised operating procedures for the elaboration, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations endorsed by the EULAR standing committees. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1172-6.
2. Bourn AN, Conaghan PG, Arden NK, et al. The quality of EULAR management recommendations: a review of ten years after publication of standardised operating procedures. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73(Suppl 2). doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.1160.
3. de Wit MP, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ, et al. European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:722-6.
4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.
5. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, et al. Chapter 9: assessing methodological quality. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. http://srdta.cochrane.org/
6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
7. Hayden JA, Côté O, Bombardier C. Evaluaton of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Int Med 2006;144:427-38.
8. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studis. Ann Int Med 2011;155:529-36.
9. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence. March 2009. http://www.cebm.net/?o=1116
10. AGREE II. http://www.agreetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AGREE-II-Users-Manual-and-23-item-Instrument-2009-UPDATE-2013.pdf
11. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, et al. on behalf of the "Psychological Theory" Group. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:26-33.