The need to systematically evaluate clinical practice guidelines

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 644-648

  Shaughnessy, Allen F ^a   Cosgrove, Lisa ^b   Lexchin, Joel R ^c  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^c YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; SCIENTIST; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENERAL PRACTICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELECTION BIAS; STANDARDS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FAMILY PRACTICE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 84995560941     PISSN: 15572625     EISSN: 15587118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.06.160115     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Genuis SJ. The proliferation of clinical practice guidelines: professional development or medicineby-numbers? J Am Board Fam Pract 2005;18: 419-25.
2. Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA. The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med 2006;63: 1811-24.
3. Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. Consensus statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm-2016 executive summary. Endocrine Pract 2016;22:84-113.
4. Redmon B, Caccamo D, Flavin P, et al. Diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. Guideline summary. 16th ed. Revised July 2014. Available from: https://www.icsi.org/guidelines-more/catalog-guidelines-and-more/catalog-guidelines/catalog-endocrine-guidelines/diabetes/. Accessed April 4, 2016.
5. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:120-34.
6. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol 2013;190:419-26.
7. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:716-26, W-236.
8. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7:18-27.
9. Niederman MS, Bass JB Jr, Campbell GD, et al. Guidelines for the initial management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: diagnosis, assessment of severity, and initial antimicrobial therapy. American Thoracic Society. Medical Section of the American Lung Association. Am Rev Resp Dis 1993; 148:1418-26.
10. Gleason PP, Kapoor WN, Stone RA, et al. Medical outcomes and antimicrobial costs with the use of the American Thoracic Society guidelines for outpatients with community-acquired pneumonia. JAMA 1997;278:32-9.
11. Camm AJ, Lip GY, De Caterina R, et al. 2012 Focused update of the ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation-developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 2012;14:1385-413.
12. Andrade AA, Li J, Radford MJ, Nilasena DS, Gage BF. Clinical benefit of American College of Chest Physicians versus European Society of Cardiology guidelines for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:777-82.
13. Alper BS, Malone-Moses M, McLellan JS, Prasad K, Manheimer E. Thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke: time for a rethink? BMJ 2015;350:h1075.
14. Shekelle PG, Kravitz RL, Beart J, Marger M, Wang M, Lee M. Are nonspecific practice guidelines potentially harmful? A randomized comparison of the effect of nonspecific versus specific guidelines on physician decision making. Health Serv Res 2000;34: 1429-48.
15. Quanstrum KH, Hayward RA. Lessons from the mammography wars. N Engl J Med 2010;363: 1076-9.
16. Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychol Rev 1996;103:582-91; discussion 592-6.
17. Guyatt G, Akl EA, Hirsh J, et al. The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:738-41.
18. Immel BK. A brief history of the GMPs for pharmaceuticals. Pharm Technol 2001:44-52.
19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. Published October 2014; updated April 2016. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg20/chapter/14-Updating-guidelines. Accessed March 30, 2016.
20. Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
21. Schunemann HJ, Al-Ansary LA, Forland F, et al. Guidelines international network: principles for disclosure of interests and management of conflicts in guidelines. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:548-53.
22. Shaneyfelt TM, Centor RM. Reassessment of clinical practice guidelines: go gently into that good night. JAMA 2009;301:868-9.
23. Burda BU, Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Smith ME. Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years as assessed by AGREE and AMSTAR instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:968-76.
24. Coyne DW. Influence of industry on renal guideline development. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007;2:3-7; discussion 13-4.
25. Berg M, Horstman K, Plass S, Van Heusden M. Guidelines, professionals and the production of objectivity: standardisation and the professionalism of insurance medicine. Sociol Health Illn 2000;22:765-91.
26. Norris SL, Burda BU, Holmer HK, et al. Author's specialty and conflicts of interest contribute to conflicting guidelines for screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:725-33.
27. Norris CL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Burda BU. Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review. PloS One 2011;6:e25153.
28. AGREE Next Steps Consortium. Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II. AGREE II instrument. May 2009. Available from: http://www.agreetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AGREE-II-Users-Manual-and-23-item-Instrument-ENGLISH.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2016.
29. Lenzer J, Hoffman JR, Furberg CD, Ioannidis JP; Guideline Panel Review Working Group. Ensuring the integrity of clinical practice guidelines: a tool for protecting patients. BMJ 2013;347:f5535.
30. Semlitsch T, Blank WA, Kopp IB, Siering U, Siebenhofer A. Evaluating guidelines: a review of key quality criteria. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2015;112:471-8.
31. Cosgrove L, Shaughnessy AF. Development of a clinician-friendly guideline assessment tool. Guideline International Network Scientific Programme 2015; 2015; Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
32. Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council (August 10). Procedures and requirements for meeting the 2011 NHMRC standard for clinical practice guidelines. May 2011, version 1.1. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp133-nhmrc-procedures-requirements-guidelines-v1.1-120125.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2016.