Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica

Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica

Background: Despite the increasing number of manuals on how to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) there remain concerns about their quality. The aim of this study was to review the quality of CPGs across a wide range of healthcare topics published since 1980. Methods: The authors conducted...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Peñaloza,Blanca
Lenguaje:Spanish / Castilian
Publicado: Sociedad Médica de Santiago 2014
Acceso en línea:http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872014000100016
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:scielo:S0034-98872014000100016
record_format dspace
spelling oai:scielo:S0034-988720140001000162014-08-18Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínicaPeñaloza,BlancaBackground: Despite the increasing number of manuals on how to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) there remain concerns about their quality. The aim of this study was to review the quality of CPGs across a wide range of healthcare topics published since 1980. Methods: The authors conducted a literature search in MEDLINE to identify publications assessing the quality of CPGs with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. For the included guidelines in each study, the authors gathered data about the year of publication, institution, country, healthcare topic, AGREE score per domain and overall assessment. Results: In total, 42 studies were selected, including a total of 626 guidelines, published between 1980 and 2007, with a median of 25 CPGs. The mean scores were acceptable for the domain 'Scope and purpose' (64%; 95% CI 61.9 to 66.4) and 'Clarity and presentation' (60%; 95% CI 57.9 to 61.9), moderate for domain 'Rigour of development' (43%; 95% CI 41.0 to 45.2), and low for the other domains ('Stakeholder involvement' 35%; 95% CI 33.9 to 37.5, 'Editorial independence' 30%; 95% CI 27.9 to 32.3, and 'Applicability' 22%; 95% CI 20.4 to 23.9). From those guidelines that included an overall assessment, 62% (168/270) were recommended or recommended with provisos. There was a significant improvement over time for all domains, except for 'Editorial independence'. Conclusions: This review shows that despite some increase in quality of CPGs over time, the quality scores as measured with the AGREE Instrument have remained moderate to low over the last two decades. This finding urges guideline developers to continue improving the quality of their products. International collaboration could help increasing the efficiency of the process.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedad Médica de SantiagoRevista médica de Chile v.142 n.1 20142014-01-01text/htmlhttp://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872014000100016es10.4067/S0034-98872014000100016
institution Scielo Chile
collection Scielo Chile
language Spanish / Castilian
description Background: Despite the increasing number of manuals on how to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) there remain concerns about their quality. The aim of this study was to review the quality of CPGs across a wide range of healthcare topics published since 1980. Methods: The authors conducted a literature search in MEDLINE to identify publications assessing the quality of CPGs with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. For the included guidelines in each study, the authors gathered data about the year of publication, institution, country, healthcare topic, AGREE score per domain and overall assessment. Results: In total, 42 studies were selected, including a total of 626 guidelines, published between 1980 and 2007, with a median of 25 CPGs. The mean scores were acceptable for the domain 'Scope and purpose' (64%; 95% CI 61.9 to 66.4) and 'Clarity and presentation' (60%; 95% CI 57.9 to 61.9), moderate for domain 'Rigour of development' (43%; 95% CI 41.0 to 45.2), and low for the other domains ('Stakeholder involvement' 35%; 95% CI 33.9 to 37.5, 'Editorial independence' 30%; 95% CI 27.9 to 32.3, and 'Applicability' 22%; 95% CI 20.4 to 23.9). From those guidelines that included an overall assessment, 62% (168/270) were recommended or recommended with provisos. There was a significant improvement over time for all domains, except for 'Editorial independence'. Conclusions: This review shows that despite some increase in quality of CPGs over time, the quality scores as measured with the AGREE Instrument have remained moderate to low over the last two decades. This finding urges guideline developers to continue improving the quality of their products. International collaboration could help increasing the efficiency of the process.
author Peñaloza,Blanca
spellingShingle Peñaloza,Blanca
Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica
author_facet Peñaloza,Blanca
author_sort Peñaloza,Blanca
title Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica
title_short Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica
title_full Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica
title_fullStr Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica
title_full_unstemmed Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica
title_sort análisis crítico de un artículo: análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica
publisher Sociedad Médica de Santiago
publishDate 2014
url http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872014000100016
work_keys_str_mv AT penalozablanca analisiscriticodeunarticuloanalisisdeunarevisionsistematicasobrecalidaddeguiasdepracticaclinica
_version_ 1718436733432889344

Ejemplares similares