| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
1 Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center, RAND Health, Santa Monica, California, USA
2 Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center, RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; Department of General Internal Medicine, Greater Los Angeles VA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; Senior Research Associate, the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service, USA
Correspondence to:
R Hasenfeld
RAND, 1700 Main Street, P O Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA; rena{at}rand.org
Objective: To determine whether North American guidelines published subsequent to and in the same topic areas as those developed by the US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) meet the same methodological criteria.
Study design: A guideline appraisal instrument containing 30 criteria was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the AHCPR guidelines, "updates" of the AHCPR guidelines authored by others, and guidelines that referenced or were adapted from the AHCPR guidelines. The frequency with which the criteria appeared in each guideline was compared and an analysis was performed to determine guidelines with two key features of the ACHPR guidelines—multidisciplinary guideline development panels and systematic reviews of the literature. Data were extracted from the guidelines by one investigator and then checked for accuracy by the other.
Results: Fifty two guidelines identified by broad based searches were evaluated. 50% of the criteria were present in every AHCPR guideline. The AHCPR guidelines scored 80% or more on 24 of the 30 criteria compared with 14 for the "updates" and 11 for those that referenced/adapted the AHCPR guidelines. All of the 17 AHCPR guidelines had both multidisciplinary development panels and systematic reviews of the literature compared with five from the other two categories (p<0.05).
Conclusions: North American guidelines developed subsequent to and in the same topic areas as the AHCPR guidelines are of substantially worse methodological quality and ignore key features important to guideline development. This finding contrasts with previously published conclusions that guideline methodological quality is improving over time.
Keywords: clinical practice guidelines; methodological quality
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Adams and A. M. McCarthy Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines and School Nursing The Journal of School Nursing, June 1, 2007; 23(3): 128 - 136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Steinbrook Guidance for Guidelines N. Engl. J. Med., January 25, 2007; 356(4): 331 - 333. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. C.H. Cheng and P. T. Choi Evidence-based decision making: current challenges and a new feature in the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/La prise de decision fondee sur les preuves : les defis actuels et une nouvelle chronique dans le Journal canadien d'anesthesie Can J Anesth, January 1, 2006; 53(1): 6 - 10. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Watine, B. Friedberg, E. Nagy, R. Onody, W. Oosterhuis, P. S. Bunting, J.-C. Charet, and A. R. Horvath Conflict between Guideline Methodologic Quality and Recommendation Validity: A Potential Problem for Practitioners Clin. Chem., January 1, 2006; 52(1): 65 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Lindberg, M. Lind, S. Petersson, and S. Wilhelmsson The use of clinical guidelines for asthma, diabetes, and hypertension in primary health care Int. J. Qual. Health Care, June 1, 2005; 17(3): 217 - 220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all eLetters
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
