Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24349397›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Ulrich Siering, Michaela Eikermann, Elke Hausner, Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer, Edmund A Neugebauer

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 17 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quality and Consistency of Penicillin Allergy Delabelling Guidelines: A Systematic Review.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Guidelines for the management of pregnant women with obesity: A systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2020
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Ulrich SieringInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Michaela EikermannInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Elke HausnerInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Wiebke Hoffmann-EßerInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany.
Edmund A NeugebauerInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.

methodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.

resultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively.

conclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEvaluation Studies as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicHumansMEDLINE

Identifiers

PMID24349397
PMCPMC3857289

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.