Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740739›Full record

ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025

Up-to-dateness of German patient versions of clinical practice guidelines and potential influencing factors: A mixed-methods study.

Irma Hellbrecht, Nadja Könsgen, Dawid Pieper, Barbara Prediger, Jessica Breuing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Irma HellbrechtInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM) Witten/Herdecke University Cologne Germany.
Nadja KönsgenInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM) Witten/Herdecke University Cologne Germany.
Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM) Witten/Herdecke University Cologne Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0715-5182
Barbara PredigerInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM) Witten/Herdecke University Cologne Germany.
Jessica BreuingInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM) Witten/Herdecke University Cologne Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3433-6464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide recommendations and are a fundamental part of clinical practice. Many guideline organisations also produce patient versions of CPGs (PVGs). To explore the up-to-dateness of German PVGs, potential methodological influence factors and experts' perspectives, we applied a convergent mixed-methods design. Methods: First, a literature search to identify PVGs was performed between October 2022 and January 2023. We searched the websites of German guideline organisations, Google and the reference lists of included PVGs. We screened the title, downloaded the documents if relevant and retrieved the underlying CPGs and methods reports of CPGs. We aggregated the literature search dates of CPGs and calculated the time between the CPG literature search and PVG publication. Second, interviews with experts in the PVG development were conducted and analysed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring) with MAXQDA. Results: 49 PVGs were included and analysed. A median of 36 months elapsed between the literature search of CPGs and the publication of PVGs. A median of 25 months passed between the literature search and publication of CPGs, and a median of 7.5 months elapsed between the CPG and PVG publication. Six interviews were conducted and interviewees mostly perceived PVGs as up-to-date. However, they identified exceptions in the up-to-dateness depending on the topic or thematic chapters of PVGs. Interviewees mentioned different influencing factors such as the scientific progress and the editorial process of PVGs. Discussion: Our findings underline potential issues with the up-to-dateness of PVGs. In the context of a fast-moving evidence basis, it seems doubtful whether PVGs actually reflect the current state of knowledge, especially in fields with high research activity. However, some factors may not be modifiable because they essentially contribute to the quality assurance of PVGs. Further research is desirable to investigate possible measures to improve the up-to-dateness of PVGs.

Indexed as

evidence‐based patient informationexpert interviewsinfluence factorspatient guidelinepatient versions of clinical practice guidelinesupdatingup‐to‐dateness

Identifiers

PMID42740739
PMCPMC13563345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.