ArticlePloS one2024
Utilization of expert opinion in infectious diseases clinical guidelines-A meta-epidemiological study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Semmelweis Framework: structuring evidence foundations and expert opinion in clinical practice guidelines.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Defining expert opinion in clinical guidelines: insights from 98 scientific societies - a methodological study.BMC medical research methodology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExpert opinion is widely used in clinical guidelines. No research has ever been conducted investigating the use of expert opinion in international infectious disease guidelines. This study aimed to create an analytical map by describing the prevalence and utilization of expert opinion in infectious disease guidelines and analyzing the methodological aspects of these guidelines.
methodsIn this meta-epidemiological study, systematic searches in PubMed and Trip Medical Database were performed to identify clinical guidelines on infectious diseases, published between January 2018 and May 2023 in English, by international organizations. Data extracted included guideline characteristics, expert opinion utilization, and methodological details. Prevalence and rationale of expert opinion use were analyzed descriptively. Methodological differences between groups were analyzed with Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U Test.
resultsThe analysis covered 66 guidelines with 2296 recommendations, published/endorsed by 136 organizations. Most guidelines (79%) used systematic literature searches, 42% provided search strategies, and 38% presented screening flow diagrams and conducted risk of bias assessments. 48.5% of the guidelines allowed expert opinion, most of which included expert opinion as part of the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Guidelines allowing expert opinion, compared to those which do not, issued more recommendations per guideline (48.82 vs.19.13, p<0.001), and reported fewer screening flow diagrams (25% vs. 65%, p = 0.002), and less risk of bias assessments (19% vs.78%, p<0.001).
conclusionsExpert opinion is utilized in half of assessed guidelines, often integrated into the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Its utilization varies considerably in methodology, form, and terminology between guidelines. These findings highlight a pressing need for additional research and guidance, to improve and advance the standardization of infectious disease guidelines.
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.