SynthesisJAMA2019
Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018.
Synthesis in JAMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
103 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Levels of evidence supporting American, European and international guidelines in psychiatry, 2014-2024: a systematic review with quantitative synthesis.BMJ mental health · 2026Pooled it
- Flying blind? Recommendations for monitoring of 10 common chronic diseases in guidelines from Germany, England, and Europe - a modified systematic review.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Rigour of development of European Society of Cardiology, American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines over a 12-year period (2013-2024): a systematic review of guidelines.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- Personalized Nutrition Biomarkers and Dietary Strategies for Atherosclerosis Risk Management: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Lack of Cited Evidence Underpinning Recommendations for Objective Assessment of Cardiovascular Function to Inform Exercise Prescription: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic breakdown of the levels of evidence supporting the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2019Pooled it
- Representativeness in randomised clinical trials supporting acute coronary syndrome guidelines.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2023Trial
- Sociotechnical Intervention for Improved Delivery of Preventive Cardiovascular Care to Rural Communities: Participatory Design Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Level of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations in US Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2019-2023: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing the Evidence Behind Guidelines in Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- The Semmelweis Framework: structuring evidence foundations and expert opinion in clinical practice guidelines.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Trust in Observational Research.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Article
- How PCORnet® Could Advance Postmarket Evidence Generation.Medical care · 2026Article
- Mind the gap: transcatheter edge to edge repairAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Sudden cardiac arrest in young adults: A comprehensive systematic review of epidemiology, aetiology and preventive strategies.Heart international · 2026Review
- Evolution and regional disparities in guideline recommendations and evidence levels for structural heart disease.iScience · 2025Article
- Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the American Urological Association and European Urological Association guidelines on stone disease.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- A framework for health systems to assess and prioritize participation in pragmatic clinical trials.Learning health systems · 2025Article
43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence. Objective: To determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time. Data Sources: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents. Study Selection: Comprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A). Results: Across 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.
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.