ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025
Needs assessment for updating IOM standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (CPG Standards) and Standards for Systematic Reviews (SR Standards), established in 2011, have significantly influenced evidence-based healthcare. However, the rapid evolution in medical practices and technologies necessitates a reassessment of these standards to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness in modern healthcare. Methods: This study employed a survey approach targeting professional guideline developers. The first survey assessed the general need for updating IOM standards (both CPG and SR Standards), while the second focused on specific CPG Standards, soliciting detailed feedback on their current relevance and areas needing revision. Participants were purposively targeted from various medical specialties and roles in guideline development. Results: The General Need for Updating IOM Standards Survey garnered 22 responses, and the Specific CPG Standards Survey received 25 responses. A significant majority of respondents indicated the need for revising both the CPG and SR Standards. Key areas identified for CPG standards revision included conflict-of-interest management, incorporation of real-world evidence and artificial intelligence, and systematic review processes. The responses highlighted the challenges of high compliance costs and the need for more practical execution guidance. Conclusion: This study highlights an urgent need for updating both sets of IOM Standards. The rapidly changing healthcare landscape, characterized by technological advancements and evolving medical evidence, necessitates a dynamic and responsive approach to guideline development. Establishing an authoritative body for periodic assessment and revision of these standards is crucial to ensure that CPGs remain scientifically robust, practical, and relevant to contemporary healthcare needs.
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.