PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15342869

Classifying recommendations for clinical practice guidelines.

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines are intended to improve the quality of clinical care by reducing inappropriate variations, producing optimal outcomes for patients, minimizing harm, and promoting cost-effective practices. This statement proposes an explicit classification of recommendations for clinical practice guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to promote communication among guideline developers, implementers, and other users of guideline knowledge, to improve consistency, and to facilitate user understanding. The statement describes 3 sequential activities in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and related policies: 1) determination of the aggregate evidence quality in support of a proposed recommendation; 2) evaluation of the anticipated balance between benefits and harms when the recommendation is carried out; and 3) designation of recommendation strength. An individual policy can be reported as a "strong recommendation," "recommendation," "option," or "no recommendation." Use of this classification is intended to improve consistency and increase the transparency of the guideline-development process, facilitate understanding of AAP clinical practice guidelines, and enhance both the utility and credibility of AAP clinical practice guidelines.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

American Academy of Pediatrics Steering Committee on Quality Improvement and Management. 2004. Classifying recommendations for clinical practice guidelines.. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-1260

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Grading the evidence: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation.

Evidence-based medicine is using the best available evidence in order to make accurate and knowledgeable treatment decisions. It is not the automatic gainsay of "low quality" evidence and acceptance of randomized controlled trials (RCT's). To be able to make a sound recommendation for a therapy based on the best available evidence, it is necessary to follow steps in acquiring literature, appraising it for study design and quality, and to assess its results, as well as look at the net benefits and net harms.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

Risk management, or just a different risk?

BACKGROUND: National reporting of adverse incidents has resulted in a number of clinical alerts being issued. Despite a lack of evidence, these alerts are often accompanied by a mandatory requirement to alter practice. There is likely to be clinician resistance to such a method of change management, particularly where evidence of safety is missing. AIM: To determine the level of implementation within neonatal units of an alert requiring the change from litmus to pH paper to test nasogastric tube position. METHOD: A questionnaire sent to all neonatal units in the United Kingdom with more than 12 cots. RESULTS: From the 207 questionnaires sent, there were 165 (80%) responses. Fifty five percent of units were still using litmus. All continued to use supplementary tests not recommended in best practice statements issued at the time of the alert. There was considerable variation in the pH value at which it was considered safe to feed. CONCLUSIONS: Nine months after the alert, more than half the units had not changed to pH paper, and supplementary methods of testing were still being used. The wide range of pH values highlights the uncertainty about the "normal" gastric pH in the newborn. The evidence that, in neonatal units, changing to pH paper is safer than the long established use of litmus is lacking. Recommendations for change in practice must be based on good information and not seen just as a "knee jerk" response to adverse incidents.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

Quality of systematic reviews used in guidelines for oncology practice.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are an important tool for developing clinical recommendations. Those of high quality assure a good level of confidence on the strength of the recommendations. METHODS: A QUOROM-based checklist was applied to the reviews cited in a sample of guidelines on breast and colon cancer prevention and therapy. The checklist provided a weight for each criterion and a total quality score. Each review was independently evaluated by two reviewers; disagreements were solved by consensus. RESULTS: Eighty reviews (96%) were retrieved and evaluated; 36 focused on breast, and 44 on colorectal cancer. Twenty-three reviews (29%) did not match the definition of systematic review. In 17 (21%) the searching methods were unclear or described elsewhere. Forty (50%) were systematic. Not systematic, low and very low quality reviews accounted for 70% of the total. No review obtained the A+ class score; only 5 (6%) the A- and 7 (9%) the B+. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this assessment provide a sober picture of the quality of the sources used to build guidelines. Oncologists should be aware that they could be relying on poor underlying documents. Writing groups should be aware of methodological problems, and should consult the existing manuals for the preparation of guidelines.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗