A comparative quality assessment of evidence‐based clinical guidelines in endocrinology

Author:

Hazlehurst Jonathan M.1,Armstrong Matthew J.2,Sherlock Mark34,Rowe Ian A.1,O'Reilly Michael W.1,Franklyn Jayne A.1,Stewart Paul M.1,Tomlinson Jeremy W.1

Affiliation:

1. The Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Institute of Biomedical Research School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine University of Birmingham Birmingham UK

2. Centre for Liver Research and NIHR Biomedical Research Unit in Liver Disease, Institute of Biomedical Research, School of Infection and Immunity University of Birmingham Birmingham UK

3. Department of Endocrinology Tallaght Hospital Dublin Ireland

4. Department of Medicine Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland

Abstract

SummaryContextEvidence‐based clinical guidelines in endocrinology attempt to improve and standardize patient care. There has been an expansion in guideline production although some of the heterogeneous methods used to assess the quality of the underlying evidence base might limit interpretation and implementation.DesignCurrent and archived guidelines from major endocrine organizations were accessed. The organizations used six different methods to rate underlying evidence, including Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). To allow direct comparison between guidelines produced by different organizations, the levels of evidence used to generate them were graded according to the standardized system: ‘high’ based on randomized, controlled trials and meta‐analyses, ‘moderate’ based on nonrandomized studies and ‘low’ based on expert opinion.ResultsThere was an increase in guideline production over time (1995–2000 = 9, 2001–2005 = 12, 2006–2011 = 36). Three guidelines were updated with an average delay of 4·3 years and an increase in recommendations per guideline (21·1%). Encouragingly, whilst updates had similar levels of ‘high’‐quality evidence, there was increased reliance on ‘moderate’‐category evidence and less on ‘low’‘‐quality evidence’ (‘high’, 6·3% vs 6·5%; ‘moderate’, 46·1% vs 59·1%; ‘low’, 47·7% vs 34·4%). A high proportion of ‘low’‐category evidence was seen throughout all organizations. Rarer conditions and recommendations concerning treatment efficacy were particularly reliant on ‘low’‐category evidence.ConclusionsThe level of evidence underpinning current guidelines highlights areas in need of well‐designed, collaborative clinical research. Furthermore, criteria to define when guideline updates are necessary are currently lacking. A standardized method of assessment, such as GRADE, would promote understanding and compliance by guideline users with the ultimate aim of enhancing patient care.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.7亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2025 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3