SynthesisBMC medicine2025
Flying blind? Recommendations for monitoring of 10 common chronic diseases in guidelines from Germany, England, and Europe - a modified systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize evidence to recommend which measures should or should not be taken in specific medical situations and thereby inform and shape the practice of medicine. In the context of an ageing population, monitoring has become an increasingly resource-intensive practice, underscoring the need for clear, evidence-based guidance. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the level of detail as well as the level of evidence of recommendations on monitoring for 10 common chronic diseases in CPGs from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and European medical societies.
methodsUsing a modified systematic review approach, a search of the relevant CPGs was conducted using the databases of the AWMF, NICE, and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). AWMF-equivalent evidence quality levels S2e and S3 CPGs were included. Recommendations on monitoring were extracted and evaluated, focusing on their level of detail regarding monitoring frequency, parameters, and consequences and their level of evidence, respectively.
resultsA total of 29 CPGs were reviewed, and 163 recommendations on monitoring were extracted and evaluated. Recommendations provided a low level of detail regarding monitoring frequency in 34.4% of cases (n = 56), regarding parameters in 25.2% of cases (n = 41), and regarding consequences in 84.7% of cases (n = 138). A level of evidence was reported for 87 of 163 recommendations only, and if available, it was often low. Only a small proportion (6.7%; n = 11) of recommendations were formulated negatively as 'do-not' recommendations.
conclusionsThe frequent lack of evidence or low level of evidence for monitoring recommendations, as well as the lack of detail in these recommendations, may lead to medical underuse, yet also to overuse, causing uncertainty among physicians and unnecessary diagnostic cascades. This has significant implications for patient harm, as well as financial and personnel burdens on the healthcare system. One potential solution could be the implementation of more 'do-not' recommendations in CPGs. However, overcoming systemic barriers is essential to enable the generation of high-quality evidence on monitoring.
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.