Barriers to making recommendations about medical tests: a qualitative study of European guideline developers

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 9, 2016, Pages

  Gopalakrishna, Gowri ^a   Leeflang, Mariska M G ^a   Davenport, Clare ^b   Sanabria, Andrea Juliana ^c   Alonso Coello, Pablo ^c   McCaffery, Kirsten ^d   Bossuyt, Patrick ^a   Langendam, Miranda W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE SANT PAU IIB SANT PAU   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CONVENIENCE SAMPLE; EDUCATION; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; EUROPE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; MALE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL STAFF; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE;

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EUROPE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 84994483123     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2015-010549     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, et al. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ 1999;318:593-6.
2. 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.
3. Bossuyt PM, McCaffery K. Additional patient outcomes and pathways in evaluations of testing. Med Decis Making 2009;29: E30-8.
4. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Jaeschke R, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy 2009;64:1109-16.
5. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008;336:1106-10.
6. Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, Chang S, et al. Methods guide for authors of systematic reviews of medical tests: a collaboration between the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Journal of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(Suppl 1):S1-3.
7. Thornton J, Alderson P, Tan T, et al. Introducing GRADE across the NICE clinical guideline program. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:124-31.
8. Bossuyt PM. Room for improvement in national academy of clinical biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines. Clin Chem 2012;58:1392-4.
9. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:189-202.
10. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:889-97.
11. Westwood ME, Whiting PF, Kleijnen J. How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis? BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:20.
12. Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, et al. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ 2006;332:1089-92.
13. Ferrante di Ruffano L, Hyde CJ, McCaffery KJ, et al. Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials. BMJ 2012;344:e686.
14. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:117.
15. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Analyzing Qualitative Data. Bryman A, Burgess RG, eds. Taylor & Francis Books Ltd, 1994, pp 173-94.
16. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19: 349-57.
17. Medicine CEBM. Asking Focussed Questions University of Oxford [updated 2014]. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1036
18. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41-4.
19. Zhelev Z, Garside R, Hyde C. A qualitative study into the difficulties experienced by healthcare decision makers when reading a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy review. Syst Rev 2013;2:32.
20. Whiting PF, Davenport C, Jameson C, et al. How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008155.
21. Ben-Shlomo Y, Collin SM, Quekett J, et al. Presentation of diagnostic information to doctors may change their interpretation and clinical management: a web-based randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0128637.
22. Horvath AR, Lord SJ, StJohn A, et al. From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:49-57.
23. Morse JM. Qualitative generalizability. Qual Health Res 1999;9:5-6.
24. Deeks JJ, Wisniewski S, Davenport C. Chapter 4: Guide to the contents of a Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2013. http://srdta.cochrane.org/
25. Gopalakrishna G, Langendam MW, Scholten RJ, et al. Guidelines for guideline developers: a systematic review of grading systems for medical tests. Implement Sci 2013;8:78.
26. NICE. Centre for Health Technology Evaluation. Diagnostics Assessment Programme (DAP). Programme manual. 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-diagnostics-guidance/Diagnostics-assessment-programme-manual.pdf
27. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, et al. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:317-9. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-050112/en/ (accessed Jul 2015).