ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2023
How to recognize a trustworthy clinical practice guideline.
Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Hydration Care After Stroke: A Systematic Review of International Clinical Practice Guidelines.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Screening and Monitoring of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.Arthritis care & research · 2024Guideline
- 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Screening and Monitoring of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Guideline
- Axicabtagene Ciloleucel versus Tisagenlecleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating Reproductive Health Recommendations in CPGs for Sickle Cell Disease: An Umbrella Review.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- Industry payments and auditability of financial conflicts of interest in US gastroenterology and hepatology clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Recent Cochrane review has serious flaws: A perspective of clinicians and researchers from around the world.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- OphthoEvidence report: Protocol for quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines in ophthalmology.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Teaching evidence-based principles in Rheumatology.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
- The ophthalmologist's guide to clinical practice guidelines: the GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks and GRADE-Adolopment.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Determinants of treatment decisions in advanced dementia: a protocol for a cross-cultural mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Determining the methodological rigor and overall quality of out-of-hospital clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Roles of evidence synthesis studies and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in pediatric perioperative outcomes research.Journal of anesthesia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines represent a fundamental tool to summarize relevant evidence regarding a set of clinical choices and provide guidance for making optimal clinical decisions. Clinicians must differentiate between guidelines that provide trustworthy evidence guidance and those that do not. We present six questions clinicians should ask when evaluating a guideline's trustworthiness. (1) Are the recommendations clear?; (2) Have the panelists considered all alternatives?; (3) Have the panelists considered all patient-important outcomes?; (4) Is the recommendation based on an up-to-date systematic review?; (5) Is the strength of the recommendation compatible with the certainty of the evidence?; (6) Might conflicts of interest influence the recommendations? If yes, were they managed? Once the conclude they are dealing with a trustworthy guideline, clinicians must gain an understanding of the transparent evidence summary that the guideline will offer, and judge the applicability of trustworthy recommendations to their patients and settings. Consideration of the circumstances and values and preferences of patients will be crucial for all weak or conditional recommendations.
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.