Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.

<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted a comparative review of clinical practice guideline development handbooks. We aimed to identify the main guideline development tasks, assign weights to the importance of each task using expert opinions and identify the handbooks that provided a comprehensi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Shabnam Ansari, Arash Rashidian
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/854f3a7ff1b942e2b9bb7a63cbdfb849
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:854f3a7ff1b942e2b9bb7a63cbdfb849
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:854f3a7ff1b942e2b9bb7a63cbdfb8492021-11-18T08:07:37ZGuidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0049864https://doaj.org/article/854f3a7ff1b942e2b9bb7a63cbdfb8492012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23189167/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted a comparative review of clinical practice guideline development handbooks. We aimed to identify the main guideline development tasks, assign weights to the importance of each task using expert opinions and identify the handbooks that provided a comprehensive coverage of the tasks.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched and included handbooks published (in English language) by national, international or professional bodies responsible for evidenced-based guideline development. We reviewed the handbooks to identify the main guideline development tasks and scored each handbook for each task from 0 (the handbook did not mention the task) to 2 (the task suitably addressed and explained), and calculated a weighted score for each handbook. The tasks included in over 75% of the handbooks were considered as 'necessary' tasks.<h4>Result</h4>Nineteen guideline development handbooks and twenty seven main tasks were identified. The guideline handbooks' weighted scores ranged from 100 to 220. Four handbooks scored over 80% of the maximum possible score, developed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Swiss Centre for International Health, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and World Health Organization. Necessary tasks were: selecting the guideline topic, determining the guideline scope, identifying relevant existing guidelines, involving the consumers, forming guideline development group,, developing clinical questions, systematic search for evidence, selecting relevant evidence, appraising identifies research evidence, making group decision, grading available evidence, creating recommendations, final stakeholder consultation, guideline implementation strategies, updating recommendations and correcting potential errors.<h4>Discussion</h4>Adequate details for evidence based development of guidelines were still lacking from many handbooks. The tasks relevant to ethical issues and piloting were missing in most handbooks. The findings help decision makers in identifying the necessary tasks for guideline development, provide an updated comparative list of guideline development handbooks, and provide a checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of guideline development processes.Shabnam AnsariArash RashidianPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 11, p e49864 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Shabnam Ansari Arash Rashidian Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.
description	<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted a comparative review of clinical practice guideline development handbooks. We aimed to identify the main guideline development tasks, assign weights to the importance of each task using expert opinions and identify the handbooks that provided a comprehensive coverage of the tasks.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched and included handbooks published (in English language) by national, international or professional bodies responsible for evidenced-based guideline development. We reviewed the handbooks to identify the main guideline development tasks and scored each handbook for each task from 0 (the handbook did not mention the task) to 2 (the task suitably addressed and explained), and calculated a weighted score for each handbook. The tasks included in over 75% of the handbooks were considered as 'necessary' tasks.<h4>Result</h4>Nineteen guideline development handbooks and twenty seven main tasks were identified. The guideline handbooks' weighted scores ranged from 100 to 220. Four handbooks scored over 80% of the maximum possible score, developed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Swiss Centre for International Health, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and World Health Organization. Necessary tasks were: selecting the guideline topic, determining the guideline scope, identifying relevant existing guidelines, involving the consumers, forming guideline development group,, developing clinical questions, systematic search for evidence, selecting relevant evidence, appraising identifies research evidence, making group decision, grading available evidence, creating recommendations, final stakeholder consultation, guideline implementation strategies, updating recommendations and correcting potential errors.<h4>Discussion</h4>Adequate details for evidence based development of guidelines were still lacking from many handbooks. The tasks relevant to ethical issues and piloting were missing in most handbooks. The findings help decision makers in identifying the necessary tasks for guideline development, provide an updated comparative list of guideline development handbooks, and provide a checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of guideline development processes.
format	article
author	Shabnam Ansari Arash Rashidian
author_facet	Shabnam Ansari Arash Rashidian
author_sort	Shabnam Ansari
title	Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.
title_short	Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.
title_full	Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.
title_fullStr	Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.
title_full_unstemmed	Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.
title_sort	guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? a comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/854f3a7ff1b942e2b9bb7a63cbdfb849
work_keys_str_mv	AT shabnamansari guidelinesforguidelinesaretheyuptothetaskacomparativeassessmentofclinicalpracticeguidelinedevelopmenthandbooks AT arashrashidian guidelinesforguidelinesaretheyuptothetaskacomparativeassessmentofclinicalpracticeguidelinedevelopmenthandbooks
_version_	1718422179194863616

Guidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks.

Ejemplares similares