ArticleQuality & safety in health care2007
Guidelines in context of evidence.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Treatments for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis: A Narrative Summary of a Systematic Literature Search.Dermatology and therapy · 2024Review
- [Assessment of risk factors for the occurrence of open angle glaucoma : Guidelines of the German Ophthalmological Society and the Professional Association of Ophthalmologists in Germany].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021Review
- Highlighting the need for de-implementation - Choosing Wisely recommendations based on clinical practice guidelines.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Chinese expert consensus on echelons treatment of pelvic fractures in modern war.Military Medical Research · 2018Article
- Expert consensus on the evaluation and diagnosis of combat injuries of the Chinese People's Liberation Army.Military Medical Research · 2018Article
- Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the finnish guidelines.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2015Review
- Patients, health information, and guidelines: A focus-group study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2015Article
- Prolonged exposure to damp and moldy workplaces and new-onset asthma.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2011Article
- Evidence-based guidelines in the evaluation of work disability: an international survey and a comparison of quality of development.BMC public health · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn clinical practice guidelines, the quality of the available evidence is graded according to its reliability and quality. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of the available research evidence, using the levels of evidence, in the evidence summaries of 64 Finnish national evidence-based Current Care guidelines.
designDescriptive assessment.
settingElectronic web-based guidelines in Finland.
main outcome measuresThe proportions of evidence summaries with different levels of evidence (A-D).
resultsThe 64 guidelines had a total of 2419 evidence summaries. Of these, 532 (22.0%) were evidence level A, 891 (36.8%) were evidence level B, 808 (33.4%) were evidence level C, and 188 (7.8%) were evidence level D. Most--that is, 81% of the level C and D evidence summaries dealt with diagnosis and treatment. Most of the evidence summaries pertained to treatment (58.2%) and diagnosis (22.4%). The sections on diagnosis and treatment represented 80% of all the level A and level B evidence, and 81% of all the level C and level D evidence.
conclusionsThere is adequate high-quality evidence (level A) to support only a fifth of the main statements of the 64 guidelines. This is most likely an optimistic estimate, since level D evidence often does not have an evidence summary. The guideline development groups find it easier to agree on recommendations based on level A and level B evidence.
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.