ArticleAnnals of family medicine2017
Developing a Clinician Friendly Tool to Identify Useful Clinical Practice Guidelines: G-TRUST.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared Decision Making: Aids and Promotion in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Which guidelines from North America and Europe on cardiovascular risk management with statins have high utility in family medicine?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Review
- Modified tool designed to ease guideline choices: Simplified version of Guideline Trustworthiness, Relevance, and Utility Scoring Tool (G-TRUST) for physicians in practice.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2024Article
- Indicators of the dimensions of trust (and mistrust) in early primary care practice: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Going against the status quo in screening: Call to action to improve teaching in preventive health care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022Article
- Article
- Conflicts of Interest in Psychopharmacology Textbooks.Community mental health journal · 2022Article
- Addressing barriers to evidence-based medicine in pediatric surgery: an introduction to the Canadian Association of Paediatric Surgeons Evidence-Based Resource.World journal of pediatric surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Endorsement of clinical practice guidelines: Criteria from the College of Family Physicians of Canada.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- Article
- Managing conflicts of interest in the development of health guidelines.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Article
- Participation and consultation engagement strategies have complementary roles: A case study of patient and public involvement in clinical practice guideline development.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Article
- Choosing guidelines to use in your practice.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Article
- From Authority- to Evidence-Based Medicine: Are Clinical Practice Guidelines Moving us Forward or Backward?Annals of family medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinicians are faced with a plethora of guidelines. To rate guidelines, they can select from a number of evaluation tools, most of which are long and difficult to apply. The goal of this project was to develop a simple, easy-to-use checklist for clinicians to use to identify trustworthy, relevant, and useful practice guidelines, the Guideline Trustworthiness, Relevance, and Utility Scoring Tool (G-TRUST).
methodsA modified Delphi process was used to obtain consensus of experts and guideline developers regarding a checklist of items and their relative impact on guideline quality. We conducted 4 rounds of sampling to refine wording, add and subtract items, and develop a scoring system. Multiple attribute utility analysis was used to develop a weighted utility score for each item to determine scoring.
resultsTwenty-two experts in evidence-based medicine, 17 developers of high-quality guidelines, and 1 consumer representative participated. In rounds 1 and 2, items were rewritten or dropped, and 2 items were added. In round 3, weighted scores were calculated from rankings and relative weights assigned by the expert panel. In the last round, more than 75% of experts indicated 3 of the 8 checklist items to be major indicators of guideline usefulness and, using the AGREE tool as a reference standard, a scoring system was developed to identify guidelines as useful, may not be useful, and not useful.
conclusionThe 8-item G-TRUST is potentially helpful as a tool for clinicians to identify useful guidelines. Further research will focus on its reliability when used by clinicians.
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.