Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

<h4>Introduction</h4>Clinical 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 describi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ulrich Siering, Michaela Eikermann, Elke Hausner, Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer, Edmund A Neugebauer
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/1af357d501f94c5aa2a1a45705381b81
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:1af357d501f94c5aa2a1a45705381b81
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:1af357d501f94c5aa2a1a45705381b812021-11-18T08:42:49ZAppraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0082915https://doaj.org/article/1af357d501f94c5aa2a1a45705381b812013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24349397/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Introduction</h4>Clinical 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.<h4>Methods</h4>Among 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.<h4>Results</h4>We 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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Most 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.Ulrich SieringMichaela EikermannElke HausnerWiebke Hoffmann-EßerEdmund A NeugebauerPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 12, p e82915 (2013)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Ulrich Siering Michaela Eikermann Elke Hausner Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer Edmund A Neugebauer Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
description	<h4>Introduction</h4>Clinical 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.<h4>Methods</h4>Among 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.<h4>Results</h4>We 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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Most 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.
format	article
author	Ulrich Siering Michaela Eikermann Elke Hausner Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer Edmund A Neugebauer
author_facet	Ulrich Siering Michaela Eikermann Elke Hausner Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer Edmund A Neugebauer
author_sort	Ulrich Siering
title	Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
title_short	Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
title_full	Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
title_fullStr	Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
title_full_unstemmed	Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
title_sort	appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2013
url	https://doaj.org/article/1af357d501f94c5aa2a1a45705381b81
work_keys_str_mv	AT ulrichsiering appraisaltoolsforclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview AT michaelaeikermann appraisaltoolsforclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview AT elkehausner appraisaltoolsforclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview AT wiebkehoffmanneßer appraisaltoolsforclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview AT edmundaneugebauer appraisaltoolsforclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview
_version_	1718421367583408128

Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Ejemplares similares