How to recognize a trustworthy clinical practice guideline

Springer Science and Business Media LLC
João Pedro Lima1, Reza Mirza1, Gordon Guyatt1
1Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

Tóm tắt

Abstract Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines represent a fundamental tool to summarize relevant evidence regarding a set of clinical choices and provide guidance for making optimal clinical decisions. Clinicians must differentiate between guidelines that provide trustworthy evidence guidance and those that do not. We present six questions clinicians should ask when evaluating a guideline’s trustworthiness. (1) Are the recommendations clear?; (2) Have the panelists considered all alternatives?; (3) Have the panelists considered all patient-important outcomes?; (4) Is the recommendation based on an up-to-date systematic review?; (5) Is the strength of the recommendation compatible with the certainty of the evidence?; (6) Might conflicts of interest influence the recommendations? If yes, were they managed? Once the conclude they are dealing with a trustworthy guideline, clinicians must gain an understanding of the transparent evidence summary that the guideline will offer, and judge the applicability of trustworthy recommendations to their patients and settings. Consideration of the circumstances and values and preferences of patients will be crucial for all weak or conditional recommendations.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Haynes RB et al (1997) Transferring evidence from research into practice: 2. Getting the evidence straight. ACP J Club 126(1):A14–A16

Tikkinen KAO, Guyatt GH (2021) Evidence-based urology: introduction to our series of articles. Eur Urol Focus 7(6):1215–1216

Brouwers MC et al (2016) The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 352:i1152

Brouwers MC et al (2010) AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 182(18):E839–E842

Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice, G (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust

Grilli R et al (2000) Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355(9198):103–106

Burgers JS et al (2003) Characteristics of high-quality guidelines: evaluation of 86 clinical guidelines developed in ten European countries and Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(1):148–157

Alonso-Coello P et al (2010) The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies. Qual Saf Health Care 19(6):e58

Armstrong JJ et al (2017) Improvement evident but still necessary in clinical practice guideline quality: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 81:13–21

Hayward RS et al (1995) Users’ guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? The evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 274(7):570–574

Guyatt GH et al (1999) Users’ guides to the medical literature: XVI. How to use a treatment recommendation. Evidence-based medicine working group and the cochrane applicability methods working group. JAMA 281(19):1836–1843

Brignardello-Petersen R, Carrasco-Labra A, Guyatt GH (2021) How to interpret and use a clinical practice guideline or recommendation: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 326(15):1516–1523

Zeng L et al (2021) GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 137:163–175

Lamontagne F et al (2020) A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19. BMJ 370:m3379

Jin YH et al (2020) Chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management of COVID-19: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (updated version). Mil Med Res 7(1):41

NICE, N.I.f.H.a.C.E (2016) Sepsis: recognition, diagnosis and early management. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng51?UNLID=6971201082022518185056

Weiss SL et al (2020) Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children. Intensive Care Med 46(Suppl 1):10–67

Hellyer TP et al (2016) The intensive care society recommended bundle of interventions for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Intensive Care Soc 17(3):238–243

Valles J et al (2017) Incidence of airway complications in patients using endotracheal tubes with continuous aspiration of subglottic secretions. Ann Intensive Care 7(1):109

Dellinger RP et al (2004) Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 32(3):858–873

Martí‐Carvajal AJ, Solà I, Lathyris D, Cardona AF (2012) Human recombinant activated protein C for severe sepsis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD004388. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004388.pub5. Accessed 26 Apr 2023

McDonagh TA et al (2021) 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 42(36):3599–3726

Nassif ME et al (2021) The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a multicenter randomized trial. Nat Med 27(11):1954–1960

Solomon SD et al (2022) Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 387(12):1089–1098

Guyatt GH et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336(7650):924–926

Carrasco-Labra A et al (2016) Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary of findings tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol 74:7–18

Guyatt GH et al (2013) GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):158–172

Guyatt GH et al (2013) GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):173–183

WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee (2022) Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline. World Health Organization, Geneva World Health Organization©

Singh Y et al (2020) International evidence-based guidelines on Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) for critically ill neonates and children issued by the POCUS Working Group of the European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). Crit Care 24(1):65

Akl EA et al (2022) A framework is proposed for defining, categorizing, and assessing conflicts of interest in health research. J Clin Epidemiol 149:236–243

Tabatabavakili S et al (2021) Financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes 5(2):466–475

Nejstgaard CH et al (2020) Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review. BMJ 371:m4234

Norris SL et al (2012) Author’s specialty and conflicts of interest contribute to conflicting guidelines for screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 65(7):725–733

English C et al (2022) Living clinical guidelines for stroke: updates, challenges and opportunities. Med J Aust 216(10):510–514

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả