Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294725›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2019

Patient Engagement and Multidisciplinary Involvement Has an Impact on Clinical Guideline Development and Decisions: A Comparison of Two Irritable Bowel Syndrome Guidelines Using the Same Data.

Paul Moayyedi, Megan Marsiglio, Christopher N Andrews, Lesley A Graff, Christina Korownyk, Brent Kvern, Adriana Lazarescu, Louis Liu, Glenda MacQueen, William G Paterson and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Putting People at the Centre of Guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026
    Article
  3. [Participation of Patients in the Development of Clinical Guidelines: A Selective Country Comparison in a Narrative Review].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Review
  4. Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Tegaserod for the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Anti-inflammatory & anti-allergy agents in medicinal chemistry · 2020
    Review
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

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Paul MoayyediFarncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Megan MarsiglioIMAGINE Network Patient Research Partner, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Christopher N AndrewsCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Lesley A GraffDepartment of Clinical Health Psychology, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Christina KorownykDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Brent KvernUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Adriana LazarescuUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Louis LiuUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Glenda MacQueenMathison Centre for Mental Health Research and Education, Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
William G PatersonGI Diseases Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Sacha SidaniCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal Hopital St-Luc, Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Stephen J VannerGI Diseases Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Paul SinclairCanadian Association of Gastroenterology, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.
Lesley MarshallCanadian Association of Gastroenterology, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.
Aida FernandesFarncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · CAQueen's University · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CACentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAMcMaster University · CAPopulation Health Research Institute · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimThe value of a multidisciplinary group and patient engagement in guideline groups is uncertain. We compared the recommendations of two guidelines that used the same data during the same time frame but with different participants to obtain a "real world" perspective on influence of the composition of guideline groups.

methodsThe Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recently updated their clinical practice guidelines for the management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). Both the CAG and ACG used the same methodology and methodologist and were presented with the same data for interpretation. The ACG group consisted of predominantly academic gastroenterologists, while the CAG group also included general practitioners, a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a patient representative. The CAG group were also asked what components of the group were valuable.

resultsThere were 14 statements with the same or similar recommendations. There were 10 statements in the CAG guideline not addressed by the ACG guideline and five recommendations where the opposite was the case. There was one statement that the two groups both addressed, but each group came to different conclusions. CAG members were in 100% agreement that involving a patient and having a multidisciplinary team was valuable and may have played a role in these differing interpretations of the same data in an IBS guideline.

conclusionsThere has been little uptake of patient involvement and multidisciplinary teams in guideline groups. However, this study provides a unique example of added benefit through broader group representation.

Indexed as

Clinical practice guidelinesIBSIrritable bowel syndromeMultidisciplinary teamPatient engagement

Identifiers

PMID31294725
PMCPMC6507294
OpenAlexW2910083860

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.