ArticleAtencion primaria2000
[Quality analysis of clinical practice guidelines on cardiovascular risks in the Basque country and a proposal for their evaluacion].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo find the implantation and quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) to manage the major cardiovascular risks: tobacco dependency, hypertension, hyperlipaemia and diabetes mellitus. To work out a model to evaluate the quality of the CPG in primary care.
designCross-sectional descriptive study.
settingThe primary care centres of the Basque Country.
participants170 CPG used at present to manage the four mentioned cardiovascular risks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsInformation was requested on the use of CPG and copies of their guidelines were requested from those in charge of 103 ranked centres. 77 centres replied (76%), of which 66 said they used one of them. A total of 170 CPG were received. On the basis of non-specific prior proposals for primary care, 21 quality criteria for the CPG, grouped in 6 blocks, were drawn up. Top quality was found in the block for clarity of clinical procedure with 63% compliance with the CPG, followed by general description (54%), and evaluation and measurement of impact (30%). The blocks with worst compliance were identification of people involved in their design (23%), evidence of their recommendations (19%) and conditions of application (4%).
conclusionsA model was proposed to evaluate the quality of the CPG. Major deficiencies in quality were found. These were most marked in key aspects such as bibliographic support for their recommendations, envisaging of conditions for application and identification of authors and reviewers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.