Guías de práctica clínica en Internet

Gutiérrez, José Francisco García; Toledo, R. Bravo

doi:10.1016/s0212-6567(01)78899-3

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This instrument took into account three quality criteria suggested by Carrasquilla-Guitiérrez et al, 18 which were proposed because they pose fundamental differences between evidence-based guidelines and guidelines based on expert opinion or consensus. 19 Each criterion was a variable with three possible categories: Criterion 1. Persons in the panel of experts making the CPG: 1) only one author is mentioned or none is mentioned, 2) the list with the names of the people that developed the guidelines is available, and 3) the list with the names of the people that elaborated the guidelines is available and specifies who were clinicians and who were in charge of the methodology.…”

Section: Quality Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Calidad de las guías de práctica clínica aprobadas en Perú entre 2015 y 2017

Huapaya-Huertas

Zafra-Tanaka

Viru-Bazan³

et al. 2020

Rev. Fac. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción. El diagnóstico y el manejo de pacientes con la misma condición médica pueden variar de manera significativa de profesional a profesional. Una manera de controlar esta variación y promover un manejo basado en evidencias es mediante el uso de guías de práctica clínica (GPC).Objetivos. Describir las características de las GPC aprobadas por entidades públicas de salud de Perú entre julio de 2015 y setiembre de 2017.Materiales y métodos. Se realizó un estudio transversal descriptivo donde se evaluaron los siguientes criterios de calidad de las GPC: panel de expertos que elaboró la guía; protocolos respecto a los sistemas de identificación, recogida y evaluación de la evidencia, y nivel de evidencia que sustenta cada recomendación.Resultados. Se incluyeron 558 GPC, de las cuales 65.8% no contaba con autor explícito o solo describía un autor y no una lista, 81.5% no contaba con citas ni referencias bibliográficas y 97.7% no sustentaba de forma clara la elaboración de sus recomendaciones. Conclusiones. La mayoría de las GPC no cumplieron los criterios de calidad evaluados en el presente estudio, por tanto es necesario mejorar las habilidades de los profesionales de la salud en Perú para elaborar GPC de calidad.

show abstract

Section: Quality Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Calidad de las guías de práctica clínica aprobadas en Perú entre 2015 y 2017

Huapaya-Huertas

Zafra-Tanaka

Viru-Bazan³

et al. 2020

Rev. Fac. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[18] The protocol available in Spanish including a summary in English. [1] Inclusion criteria of EB-CPGs [19] on preoperative care were as follows: a) description of the guideline's development expert panel; b) use of standard methods for identification, data collection and study risk of bias assessment; c) report of the level of evidence that supports each recommendation. Guidelines were excluded if they were limited to single specific conditions since we focus more general recommendations.…”

Section: Multiple Medical Societies and Organizations Around The Worlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care: a systematic review.

Ciapponi

Elena

Sacha

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

show abstract

“…[19] The protocol available in Spanish including a summary in English. [1] We aimed to identify the most reliable CPGs therefore we used a definition for EB-CPGs previously reported [20] The inclusion eligibility criteria were:…”

Section: Multiple Medical Societies and Organizations Around The Worlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review

Ciapponi

Elena

Sacha

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology.Results: We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions: We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

show abstract

Guías de práctica clínica en Internet

Cited by 21 publications

References 3 publications

Calidad de las guías de práctica clínica aprobadas en Perú entre 2015 y 2017

Calidad de las guías de práctica clínica aprobadas en Perú entre 2015 y 2017

Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care: a systematic review.

The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About