ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2026
Time for an Update: The Currency of Clinical Guidelines in Australia-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLong-term and chronic health conditions are associated with a significant burden of disease and economic impact in Australia. Although improving health outcomes requires a multifactorial approach, up-to-date clinical guidelines can optimise healthcare delivery by providing clinicians with evidence-based, actionable recommendations. We aimed to determine the currency and key methodological characteristics of national clinical guidelines published in Australia and focussed on areas of highest prevalence and burden of disease. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed, the Guidelines International Network International Guidelines Library and Australian college and society websites in July 2025 for national clinical guidelines in the five areas of highest prevalence and burden of disease, as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, respectively. Information and metrics relating to time since publication, time since last evidence search and methods and processes (e.g., reporting of clinical questions and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome [PICO] criteria and approval of the guideline by the National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]) were tabulated and analysed.
resultsThirty-one guidelines published between 2002 and 2025 were identified, with most relating to diabetes or mental health. The mean times since publication and last search date were 8.6 and 9.8 years, respectively. Most provided details regarding clinical questions (77%), PICO criteria (61%), search strategies (68%) and other methodological considerations, however, fewer than half used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess certainty of evidence or provided details regarding conflicts of interest (48% each). Of the 18 guidelines approved by the NHMRC, five were developed within the previous 5 years and remain approved.
conclusionFor most high-priority clinical conditions in Australia, there are no up-to-date evidence-based guidelines available to support clinical decision-making. Guideline developers and funders should invest more energy and resources into planning for updates and ensuring that methods and processes are optimised to facilitate this, such as considering a living approach.
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.