Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36647085›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Approaches to clinical guideline development in healthcare: a scoping review and document analysis.

Annemarie De Leo, Dianne Bloxsome, Sara Bayes

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Annemarie De LeoEdith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Perth, WA, Australia. a.deleo@ecu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0667-5995
Dianne BloxsomeEdith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Perth, WA, Australia.
Sara BayesAustralian Catholic University, 8-14 Brunswick St. Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past decade, an industry has emerged around Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) development in healthcare, which has increased pressure on guideline-producing organisations to develop CPGs at an accelerated rate. These are intended to improve the quality of care provided to patients while containing healthcare costs and reducing variability in clinical practice. However, this has inadvertently led to discrepancies in CPG recommendations between health organisations, also challenging healthcare providers who rely on these for decision-making and to inform clinical care. From a global perspective, although some countries have initiated national protocols regarding developing, appraising and implementing high-quality CPGs, there remains no standardised approach to any aspect of CPG production.

methodsA scoping review of the literature and document analysis were conducted according to Joanna Brigg's Institute methodology for scoping reviews. This comprised two qualitative methods: a comprehensive review of the literature (using CINAHL, Scopus and PubMeD) and a document analysis of all national and international guideline development processes (manual search of health-related websites, national/international organisational health policies and documents).

resultsA set of clear principles and processes were identified as crucial to CPG development, informing the planning, implementation and dissemination of recommendations. Fundamentally, two common goals were reported: to improve the quality and consistency of clinical practice (patient care) and to reduce the duplication or ratification of low-grade CPGs.

conclusionsConsultation and communication between CPG working parties, including a wide range of representatives (including professional organisations, regional and local offices, and relevant national bodies) is essential. Further research is required to establish the feasibility of standardising the approach and disseminating the recommendations.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDocument AnalysisCommunicationHealth FacilitiesHealth PolicyHumansClinical Practice GuidelinesEvidence-based medicineGuideline developmentQuality healthcareStandardisation

Identifiers

PMID36647085
PMCPMC9841716

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.