Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12712141›Full record

ReviewNursing outlook

Practice guidelines and measurement: state-of-the-science.

Patricia C Dykes

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nursing outlook. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patricia C DykesColumbia University, New York City, New York 10032, USA. pcd27@columbia.edu
Columbia University · US

Funding

GUIDELINES ADHERENCE AFTER CLINICAL PATHWAY INTERVENTIONF31NR008171 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI DYKES, PATRICIA C · 2002 to 2003
$75k
NINR NIH HHS F31 NR008171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRestructuring of the health care system has exposed widespread evidence of practice variability and has highlighted the benefits associated with nurses embracing interdisciplinary, best practice solutions to health care delivery. Clinical practice guidelines have emerged as a valuable interdisciplinary evidenced-based tool. PURPOSE: This article explores the state of the science of guideline measurement and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of measurement approaches.

methodA computerized search of Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Medline, and PubMed for the search term "practice guidelines" was combined with the following key words: attitudes, adherence, effect, impact, instrument, and measurement. DISCUSSION: Measurement issues identified in this analysis are related to the manner in which guidelines are written and the lack of a standard methodology for measurement.

conclusionsThe challenge remains to establish sound measures of adherence and impact while controlling for confounding variables. Questions remain as to the format of practice guidelines to best grant autonomy while offering recommendations that are clear and measurable.

Indexed as

Nursing Evaluation ResearchPractice Guidelines as TopicGuideline AdherenceHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignUnited States

Identifiers

PMID12712141
PMCPMC3107711
OpenAlexW2081662355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.