ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2021
Current Status of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Korea.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Presentation of Benefits and Harms in Cancer Screening Guidelines for Koreans: A Systematic Review.Cancer research and treatment · 2025Pooled it
- Two Years of Experience and Methodology of Korean COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guideline Development.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines: Current Status of Adherence to the RIGHT Checklist.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe development process of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) must adhere to development standards and must be supported and steered by a representative and consistent governing body. We aimed to investigate the current status of the most recent CPGs published in Korea through surveys of medical professional societies and literature searches.
methodsWe collected CPGs developed in Korea in the past 5 years through several electronic database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, and KoreaMed), hand searches, and surveys of medical society memberships from the Korean Academy Medical Societies. Three authors selected Korean CPGs according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria and extracted data from selected CPGs about general characteristics, characteristics of CPGs for setup, evidence evaluation, and the finalization phase.
resultsOut of 2,337 articles searched from various sources and 66 documents collected by survey, 129 guidelines (122 by database searching and 7 by survey) were selected. During the recent 5 years, the yearly numbers of CPGs developed were around 25. A single organization was the most frequent CPG development body (42, 32.6%). The most common development methodologies described in the CPGs included were de novo (53, 41.1%) followed by adaptation (48, 37.2%) and hybrid (4, 3.1%). Systematic literature searching was performed in most of the guidelines (79.8%). The evidence level was reported in 104 guidelines (80.6%). There were 77 guidelines (59.7%) that reported an update plan. Fifty guidelines were published in Korean (41.0%), and 46 guidelines were published in English only (37.7%).
conclusionAmong CPGs developed in Korea in the last 5 years, the proportion adhering to CPG development standards has increased, but there is still room for improvement.
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.