ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2003
Developing primary care review criteria from evidence-based guidelines: coronary heart disease as a model.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Approaches of integrating the development of guidelines and quality indicators: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2020Pooled it
- Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures.Implementation science : IS · 2016Pooled it
- Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2012Pooled it
- The effect of referral templates on out-patient quality of care in a hospital setting: a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2017Trial
- Pelvic circumferential compression devices for prehospital management of suspected pelvic fractures: a rapid review and evidence summary for quality indicator evaluation.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Review
- Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process.BMC family practice · 2015Article
- Evaluating Guidelines: A Review of Key Quality Criteria.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- [Impact on cardiovascular health results of the introduction of the clinical governance contract into primary care in Tarragona].Atencion primaria · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational Health Service (NHS) initiatives such as Clinical Governance, National Service Frameworks and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines programme create demand for tools to enable performance review by healthcare professionals. Ideally such tools should enable clinical teams to assess quality of care and highlight areas of good practice or where improvement is needed. They should also be able to be used to demonstrate progress towards goals and promote quality, while not unnecessarily increasing demand on limited resources or weakening professional control.
aimTo formulate and evaluate a method for developing, from clinical guidelines, evidence-based review criteria that are proritised, useful and relevant to general practices assessing quality of care for the primary care management of coronary heart disease (CHD). DESIGN OF STUDY: A two-stage study comprising, first, a review of available evidence-based guidelines for CHD and, second, the definition and prioritization of associated review criteria from the most highly rated guidelines.
settingPrimary healthcare teams in England.
methodsUsing structured methods, evidence-based clinical guidelines for CHD were identified and appraised to ensure their suitability as the basis for developing review criteria. Recommendations common to a number of guidelines were priortszid by a panel of general practitioners to develop review criteria suitable for use in primary care.
resultsA standardised method has been developed for constructing evidence-based review criteria from clinical guidelines. A limited, prioritized set of review criteria was developed for the primary care management of CHD. This was distributed around the NHS through the Royal College of General Practitioners for use by primary care teams across the United Kingdom.
conclusionDeveloping useful, evidence-based review criteria is not a straightforward process, partly because of a lack of consistency and clarity in guidelines currently available. A method was developed which accommodated these limitations and which can be applied to the development and evaluation of review criteria from guidelines for other conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15103876PMC1314691W117111063What 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.