Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27904996›Full record

ReviewZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2017

[Methodological approaches in the development of clinical guidelines].

K Albrecht

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

K AlbrechtDeutsches Rheuma-Forschungszentrum Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. albrecht@drfz.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Practical guidelines assist the clinical decision-making process in modern medicine. In rheumatology the number of practical guidelines dealing with diagnostics and therapy of rheumatic diseases is also constantly increasing. Methodological standards for guidelines ensure adequate development under consideration of precisely defined structures. Expert recommendations for action (S1) are distinguished from consensus (S2k) or evidence-based (S2e) as well as consensus and evidence-based (S3) guidelines. Levels of evidence categorize available studies by study design. Parameters for the evaluation of guidelines are summarized in the German instrument for the assessment of guidelines (DELBI).

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicClinical Decision-MakingEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRheumatic DiseasesRheumatologyTreatment OutcomeDiagnosticsEvidenceQualityRheumatologyTherapy

Identifiers

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.