Methods underpinning national clinical guidelines for hypertension: describing the evidence shortfall

Author:

Campbell Fiona,Dickinson Heather O,Cook Julia VF,Beyer Fiona R,Eccles Martin,Mason James M

Abstract

Abstract Background To be useful, clinical practice guidelines need to be evidence based; otherwise they will not achieve the validity, reliability and credibility required for implementation. Methods This paper compares the methods used in gathering, analysing and linking of evidence to guideline recommendations in ten current hypertension guidelines. Results It found several guidelines had failed to implement methods of searching for the relevant literature, critical analysis and linking to recommendations that minimise the risk of bias in the interpretation of research evidence. The more rigorous guidelines showed discrepancies in recommendations and grading that reflected different approaches to the use of evidence in guideline development. Conclusion Clinical practice guidelines as a methodology are clearly still an evolving health care technology.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy

Reference124 articles.

1. Field MJ, Lohr KN, (eds): Institute of Medicine Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use. 1992, Washington DC, National Academy Press

2. Dans PE: Credibility, cookbook medicine, and common sense: guidelines and the college. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1994, 120: 966-968.

3. Guidelines CCP: Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Edited by: Field MG LKN. 1990, Washington, National Academy Press, Institute of Medicine

4. Eccles M, Freemantle N, Mason J: Developing cost effectiveness guidelines. BMJ. 1997, 27-27.

5. Collaboration TAGREE: Development and validation of an interational appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2003, 12: 18-23. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.18.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3