SynthesisBMJ evidence-based medicine2025
Development of a generalised tool for evaluating success of clinical practice guidelines implementation (A-GIST).
Synthesis in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a clinical practice guidelines implementability assessment tool (CPG-IAT) based on the COSMIN framework.Implementation science : IS · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a generalised tool to evaluate the success of implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review, group brainstorming discussion and modified Delphi method.
participantsA steering group (3 members) was assembled responsible for the guidance and ensuring stakeholder's involvement. A tool development group (24 members) of leading experts provided expertise in refining the frame and items during the development and participated in the Delphi process. And a secretary group (7 members) was responsible for the organization and coordination, systematic reviewing, drafting of the preliminary list of items, documenting and revising the tool according to the suggestions of the development group.
interventionsFour process stages were employed. First, the project was launched with core groups formed for the development. Second, based on the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance framework, a systematic review of existing methods for evaluating the success of CPGs implementation and a brainstorming discussion were conducted to form a preliminary list. Third, a modified Delphi method was organised, integrating a multidisciplinary face-to-face consultation meeting with two rounds of online Delphi consultations. Fourth, the tool was revised and finalised incorporating all expert suggestions.
resultsDevelopment teams comprising multidisciplinary experts were formed. In the systematic review, 7 biomedical literature databases were searched, and 208 pieces of literature were included. After three rounds of brainstorming discussions on items identified in the literature, a 23-item preliminary list was produced. In the modified Delphi method, 14 experts made 23 main suggestions in the face-to-face meeting on the list. 13 experts participated in the first round of Delphi consultation, reached agreement on 20 items, removed 4 items and added 1 new item. 11 experts attended the second-round consultation and had an agreement to include 20 items after revision.
conclusionsThe Guideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST) was systematically developed as a comprehensive tool to assess the success of CPGs implementation. It comprises 5 dimensions, Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance, encompassing 20 items that integrate perspectives from both clinicians and patients. A-GIST is designed to facilitate evaluating, benchmarking and cross-comparison of implementation success between guidelines, facilities and regions. Additionally, it provides evidence-based insights to inform the development of targeted strategies for optimising guideline implementation practices.
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.