Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35368318›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2022

Recommendation Reversals in Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Reza Gholami, Rishad Khan, Anushka Ramkissoon, Abdulrahman Alabdulqader, Nikko Gimpaya, Rishi Bansal, Michael A Scaffidi, Vinay Prasad, Allan S Detsky, Jeffrey P Baker and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 70% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Reza GholamiDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rishad KhanDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5090-7685
Anushka RamkissoonDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abdulrahman AlabdulqaderDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nikko GimpayaDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rishi BansalDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael A ScaffidiDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2068-6655
Vinay PrasadDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California,USA.
Allan S DetskyInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jeffrey P BakerDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Samir C GroverDivision of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
St. Michael's Hospital · CAMount Sinai Hospital · CAUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may be reversed when evidence emerges to show they are futile or unsafe. In this study, we identified and characterized recommendation reversals in gastroenterology CPGs. Methods: We searched CPGs published by 20 gastroenterology societies from January 1990 to December 2019. We included guidelines which had at least two iterations of the same topic. We defined reversals as when (a) the more recent iteration of a CPG recommends against a specific practice that was previously recommend in an earlier iteration of a CPG from the same body, and (b) the recommendation in the previous iteration of the CPG is not replaced by a new diagnostic or therapeutic recommendation in the more recent iteration of the CPG. The primary outcome was the number of recommendation reversals. Secondary outcomes included the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence cited for reversals. Results: Twenty societies published 1022 CPGs from 1990 to 2019. Our sample for analysis included 129 unique CPGs. There were 11 recommendation reversals from 10 guidelines. New evidence was presented for 10 recommendation reversals. Meta-analyses were cited for two reversals, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for seven reversals. Recommendations were stronger after the reversal for three cases, weaker in two cases, and of similar strength in three cases. We were unable to compare recommendation strengths for three reversals. Conclusion: Recommendation reversals in gastroenterology CPGs are uncommon but highlight low value or harmful practices.

Indexed as

Clinical practice guidelinesEvidence-based medicineQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID35368318
PMCPMC8972276
OpenAlexW4212934038

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.