Procedures for Using Clinical Practice Guidelines

Hargrove, Patricia; Griffer, Mona R.; Lund, Bonnie

doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/028)

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A small group of tools with specific questions and / or appraisal criteria with an additional qualitative appraisal [57,60,64,107,108]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While their main focus is still the appraisal of methodological aspects of guideline development and reporting, they nevertheless require judgments on whether relevant quality aspects have been adequately implemented. For example, they assess not only whether the search strategy was reported but also require a qualitative statement on whether the strategy was appropriate [57,60,64,107,108], whether the evidence identified was appropriately summarized in the recommendations [60,64,107,108] or whether an appropriate formal process was used to arrive at the recommendations [57,60]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Appraisal Tools for Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.MethodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications.On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.ResultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions “evaluation of evidence” (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), “presentation of guideline content” (34 tools; 85%), “transferability” (33 tools; 83%), “independence” (32 tools; 80%), “scope” (30 tools; 75%), and “information retrieval” (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions “consideration of different perspectives” and “dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline” were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively. ConclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

show abstract

“…A small group of tools with specific questions and / or appraisal criteria with an additional qualitative appraisal [57,60,64,107,108]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appraisal Tools for Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, EBP is also thought to be too prescriptive and to threaten clinicians’ clinical autonomy (Sackett et al., 1996). Other disadvantages of EBP have also been cited: difficulty to access the research data and studies (Hargrove et al., 2008), lack of consensus to define the most relevant evidence (Dodd, 2007; McCurtin & Roddam, 2012), lack of time to read research papers (O'Connor & Pettigrew, 2009; Zipoli & Kennedy, 2005), and complexity of implementing EBP into practice (Guilhot et al., 2013; Vallino‐Napoli & Reilly, 2004). Furthermore, there is a lack of methodological skills to select reliable information (Nail‐Chiwetalu & Ratner, 2007; O'Connor & Pettigrew, 2009; Vallino‐Napoli & Reilly, 2004), analyse research (Nail‐Chiwetalu & Ratner, 2007), appraise the external scientific evidence (Isaksen, 2017), and understand statistical results (O'Connor & Pettigrew, 2009) or read articles written in English for French SLT (Guilhot et al., 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%