Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796531›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Guidelines in professions allied to medicine.

L Thomas, N Cullum, E McColl, N Rousseau, J Soutter, N Steen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03725774 (The SUMAMOS EXCELENCIA Project), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03725774 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

The SUMAMOS EXCELENCIA Project: Assessment of Implementation of Best Practices in a National Health System

TypeinterventionalSponsorTeresa Moreno CasbasRan2016 to 2017Enrolled300ConditionsAge ProblemArmsGRIP (Getting Research into Practice) model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Adherence to guidelines and protocols in the prehospital and emergency care setting: a systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2013
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Systematic review of economic evaluations and cost analyses of guideline implementation strategies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2007
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. [The importance of guidelines in dentistry and dental education].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

L ThomasCentre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK, NE2 4AA. l.h.thomas@newcastle.ac.uk
N Cullum
E McColl
N Rousseau
J Soutter
N Steen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice guidelines aim to reduce inappropriate variations in practice and to promote the delivery of evidence-based health care.

objectivesTo identify and assess the effects of studies of the introduction of clinical practice guidelines in nursing (including health visiting), midwifery and other professions allied to medicine. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE (1975 to 1996), EMBASE, Cinahl and Sigle to 1996, the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (1994 to 1996), DHSS-Data (1983 to 1996), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (1994 to 1996) and reference lists of articles. We also hand searched the journal Quality in Health Care, made personal contact with content experts and contacted libraries identified by an expert panel. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses of the introduction of interventions comparing 1. Clinical guidelines plus dissemination and/or implementation strategies versus no guidelines; 2. Guidelines plus dissemination and/or implementation strategies versus guidelines plus alternative dissemination and/or implementation strategies; and 3. (post hoc) Guidelines used by professions allied to medicine versus standard physician care. The participants were nurses, midwives and other professions allied to medicine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN

resultsEighteen studies were included involving more than 467 health care professionals. The reporting of study methods was inadequate for all studies. In all but one study, nurses were the targeted professional group; one study was aimed solely at dieticians. The various behaviours targeted included the management of hypertension, low back pain and hyperlipidaemia. Nine studies were identified for comparison 1. Three out of five studies observed improvements in at least some processes of care and six out of eight studies observed improvements in outcomes of care. Only one study included a formal economic evaluation, with equivocal findings. Three studies were identified for comparison 2 but it was difficult to draw firm conclusions because of poor methods. Six studies were identified for comparison 3 (post hoc). These studies generally supported the hypothesis that there was no difference between care given by nurses using clinical guidelines and standard physician care. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is some evidence that guideline-driven care is effective in changing the process and outcome of care provided by professions allied to medicine. However, caution is needed in generalising findings to other professions and settings.

Indexed as

Allied Health PersonnelGuideline AdherenceHumansMidwiferyNursingPractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID10796531
PMCPMC13110913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.