Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33627104›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2021

Bringing two worlds closer together: a critical analysis of an integrated approach to guideline development and quality assurance schemes.

Thomas Piggott, Miranda Langendam, Elena Parmelli, Jan Adolfsson, Elie A Akl, David Armstrong, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Jan Brozek, Jolanta Gore-Booth and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

20 authors at 13 institutions in 9 countries.

Thomas PiggottDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Miranda LangendamDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Elena ParmelliEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy. Elena.PARMELLI@ec.europa.eu.
Jan AdolfssonSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Sweden & The Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elie A AklDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
David ArmstrongFarncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, 2109, Australia.
Romina Brignardello-PetersenDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Jan BrozekDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Jolanta Gore-BoothDigestive Cancers Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Markus FollmannGerman Cancer Society, Heidelberg, Germany.
Zbigniew LeśEvidence Prime, Kraków, Poland.
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Luciana NeamţiuEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy.
Monika NothackerInstitute of Medical Knowledge Management, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies, Frankfurt, Germany.
Amir QaseemAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paolo Giorgi RossiAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Zuleika Saz-ParkinsonEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy.
Philip van der WeesRadboud University Medical Center, Department of IQ healthcare and Rehabilitation, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada. schuneh@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3211-8479
Health Sciences Centre · CAEuropean Commission · BEUniversity of Freiburg · DEAmerican College of Physicians · USAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAssociation of the Scientific Medical Societies · DEAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BEGerman Cancer Society · DEKarolinska Institutet · SEMacquarie University · AUPopulation Health Research Institute · CARadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

European Commission Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives.

methodsWe undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants.

resultsSeven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. DISCUSSION: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.

Indexed as

ChecklistEvidence-Based MedicineHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareGuidelinesHealthcare qualityQuality assuranceQuality improvementQuality indicatorsRecommendationsTools

Identifiers

PMID33627104
PMCPMC7903641
OpenAlexW3129798382

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.