Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal
Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0140-6736(99)02171-6
复制
发表时间：
2000-01-08
期刊：
影响因子：
168.9
通讯作者：
Liberati, A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grilli, R;Magrini, N;Liberati, A
背景：人们越来越关注执业指南的质量、可靠性和独立性。由于没有关于专业协会制定的指南的方法学质量的信息，我们对那些发表在同行评议期刊上的指南进行了调查。方法1988年1月至1998年7月期间由专业学会制作并以英文出版的实践指南，通过MEDLINE进行鉴定，评估其质量，包括是否报告：参与发展过程的专业人员和利益相关者的类型；确定主要证据的策略；并根据支持证据的质量对建议进行明确的分级。总的来说，431份指南符合研究条件。大多数不符合标准：67%没有报告任何利益相关者类型的描述，88%没有提供已发表研究的搜索信息，82%没有给出任何明确的推荐强度分级。随着时间的推移，搜索率有所提高(从2%提高到18%，p
Background There is increasing concern about the quality, reliability, and independence of practice guidelines. Because no information is available on the methodological quality of the guidelines developed by specialty societies, we undertook a survey on those published in peer-reviewed journals.Methods Practice guidelines produced by specialty societies and published in English between January, 1988, and July, 1998, where identified through MEDLINE, Their quality was assessed in terms of whether they reported: the type of professionals and stakeholders involved in the development process; the strategy to identify primary evidence; and an explicit grading of recommendations according to the quality of supporting evidence.Findings Overall, 431 guidelines were eligible for the study. Most did not meet the criteria: 67% did not report any description of the type of stakeholders, 88% gave no information on searches for published studies, and 82% did not give any explicit grading of the strength of recommendations. There was improvement over time for searches (from 2% to 18%, p