Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29843737›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

The advantages and limitations of guideline adaptation frameworks.

Zhicheng Wang, Susan L Norris, Lisa Bero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. IgA nephropathy management: what does the future hold?Kidney international supplements · 2026
    Review
  13. National guideline development and adaptation, Egypt.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026
    Article
  14. A Delphi Study to Identify Priority Indicators for Formulary Selection of Innovative Anticancer Drugs in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 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

3 authors.

Zhicheng WangFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. zwan7718@uni.sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0559-4736
Susan L NorrisWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lisa BeroFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of evidence-based guidelines can improve clinical and public health outcomes by helping health professionals practice in the most effective manner, as well as assisting policy-makers in designing optimal programs. Adaptation of a guideline to suit the context in which it is intended to be applied can be a key step in the implementation process. Without taking the local context into account, certain interventions recommended in evidence-based guidelines may be infeasible under local conditions. Guideline adaptation frameworks provide a systematic way of approaching adaptation, and their use may increase transparency, methodological rigor, and the quality of the adapted guideline. This paper presents a number of adaptation frameworks that are currently available. We aim to compare the advantages and limitations of their processes, methods, and resource implications. These insights into adaptation frameworks can inform the future development of guidelines and systematic methods to optimize their adaptation. ANALYSIS: Recent adaptation frameworks show an evolution from adapting entire existing guidelines, to adapting specific recommendations extracted from an existing guideline, to constructing evidence tables for each recommendation that needs to be adapted. This is a move towards more recommendation-focused, context-specific processes and considerations. There are still many gaps in knowledge about guideline adaptation. Most of the frameworks reviewed lack any evaluation of the adaptation process and outcomes, including user satisfaction and resources expended. The validity, usability, and health impact of guidelines developed via an adaptation process have not been studied. Lastly, adaptation frameworks have not been evaluated for use in low-income countries.

conclusionDespite the limitations in frameworks, a more systematic approach to adaptation based on a framework is valuable, as it helps to ensure that the recommendations stay true to the evidence while taking local needs into account. The utilization of frameworks in the guideline implementation process can be optimized by increasing the understanding and upfront estimation of resource and time needed, capacity building in adaptation methods, and increasing the adaptability of the source recommendation document.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHealth PersonnelPractice Guidelines as TopicHealth ResourcesHumansAdaptationAdaptation frameworksGlobal healthGuidelines

Identifiers

PMID29843737
PMCPMC5975671

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.