Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17118181›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2006

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines.

Holger J Schünemann, Atle Fretheim, Andrew D Oxman, WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Relevance of Microvascular Flow Assessments in Critically Ill Neonates and Children: A Systematic Review.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An international guideline training and certification programme.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Pharmacological Treatments for Localized Provoked Vulvodynia: A Scoping Review.International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Holger J SchünemannINFORMA, S.C. Epidemiologia, Istitituto Regina Elena, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy. hjs@buffalo.edu
Atle Fretheim
Andrew D Oxman
WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the first of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.

objectivesWe reviewed the literature on guidelines for the development of guidelines.

methodsWe searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: We found no experimental research that compared different formats of guidelines for guidelines or studies that compared different components of guidelines for guidelines. However, there are many examples, surveys and other observational studies that compared the impact of different guideline development documents on guideline quality. WHAT HAVE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DONE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR GUIDELINES FROM WHICH WHO CAN LEARN?: Establish a credible, independent committee that evaluates existing methods for developing guidelines or that updates existing ones. Obtain feedback and approval from various stakeholders during the development process of guidelines for guidelines. Develop a detailed source document (manual) that guideline developers can use as reference material. WHAT SHOULD BE THE KEY COMPONENTS OF WHO GUIDELINES FOR GUIDELINES?: Guidelines for guidelines should include information and instructions about the following components: 1) Priority setting; 2) Group composition and consultations; 3) Declaration and avoidance of conflicts of interest; 4) Group processes; 5) Identification of important outcomes; 6) Explicit definition of the questions and eligibility criteria ; 7) Type of study designs for different questions; 8) Identification of evidence; 9) Synthesis and presentation of evidence; 10) Specification and integration of values; 11) Making judgments about desirable and undesirable effects; 12) Taking account of equity; 13) Grading evidence and recommendations; 14) Taking account of costs; 15) Adaptation, applicability, transferability of guidelines; 16) Structure of reports; 17) Methods of peer review; 18) Planned methods of dissemination & implementation; 19) Evaluation of the guidelines. WHAT HAVE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DONE TO IMPLEMENT GUIDELINES FOR GUIDELINES FROM WHICH WHO CAN LEARN?: Obtain buy-in from regions and country level representatives for guidelines for guidelines before dissemination of a revised version. Disseminate the guidelines for guidelines widely and make them available (e.g. on the Internet). Develop examples of guidelines that guideline developers can use as models when applying the guidelines for guidelines. Ensure training sessions for those responsible for developing guidelines. Continue to monitor the methodological literature on guideline development.

Identifiers

PMID17118181
PMCPMC1665445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.