scholarly journals A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (2) ◽  
pp. 1221-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magnus Eriksson ◽  
Annika Billhult ◽  
Tommy Billhult ◽  
Elena Pallari ◽  
Grant Lewison
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Research Level

AbstractAlthough there are now several bibliographic databases of research publications, such as Google Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus, and the Web of Science (WoS), and some also include counts of citations, there is at present no similarly comprehensive database of the rapidly growing number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), with their references, which sometimes number in the hundreds. CPGs have been shown to be useful for the evaluation of clinical (as opposed to basic) biomedical research, which often suffers from relatively low counts of citations in the serial literature. The objectives were to introduce a new citation database, clinical impact®, and demonstrate how it can be used to evaluate research impact of clinical research publications by exploring the characteristics of CPG citations of two sets of papers, as well as show temporal variation of clinical impact® and the WoS. The paper includes the methodology used to retain the data and also the rationale adopted to achieve data quality. The analysis showed that although CPGs tend preferentially to cite papers from their own country, this is not always the case. It also showed that cited papers tend to have a more clinical research level than uncited papers. An analysis of diachronous citations in both clinical impact® and the WoS showed that although the WoS citations showed a decreasing trend after a peak at 2–3 years after publication, this was less clear for CPG citations and a longer timescale would be needed to evaluate their impact on these documents.

scholarly journals Reply to “Clinical practice guidelines or clinical research guidelines?”

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (9) ◽  
pp. 2056-2057
Author(s):  
Riitta Hari ◽  
Sylvain Baillet ◽  
Gareth Barnes ◽  
Nina Forss ◽  
Joachim Gross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Research Guidelines

Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. E45-E74 ◽  
Author(s):  
France Légaré ◽  
Antoine Boivin ◽  
Trudy van der Weijden ◽  
Christine Pakenham ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Impact

Background. The role of patient and public involvement programs (PPIPs) in developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has generated great interest. Purpose. The authors sought to identify key components of PPIPs used in developing and implementing CPGs. Data sources. The authors searched bibliographic databases and contacted relevant organizations. Study selection. In total, 2161 articles and reports were retrieved on PPIPs in the development and implementation of CPGs. Of these, 71 qualified for inclusion in the review. Data extraction. Reviewers independently extracted data on key components of PPIPs and barriers and facilitators to their operation. Data synthesis. Over half of the studies were published after 2002, and more than half originated from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany. CPGs that involved patients and the public addressed a variety of health problems, especially mental health and cancer. The most frequently cited objective for using PPIPs in developing CPGs was to incorporate patients’ values or perspectives in CPG recommendations. Patients and their families and caregivers were the parties most often involved. Methods used to recruit PPIP participants included soliciting through patient/public organizations, sending invitations, and receiving referrals and recruits from clinicians. Patients and the public most often participated by taking part in a CPG working group, workshop, meeting, seminar, literature review, or consultation such as a focus group, individual interview, or survey. Patients and the public principally helped formulate recommendations and revise drafts. Limitations. The authors did not contact the authors of the studies. Conclusion. This literature review provides an extensive knowledge base for making PPIPs more effective when developing and implementing CPGs. More research is needed to assess the impact of PPIPs and resources they require.

scholarly journals Protocol for the validation of four search strategies for retrieval of Clinical Practice Guidelines in MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole A Lunny ◽  
Doug M Salzwedel ◽  
Tracy Liu ◽  
Cynthia Ramasubbu ◽  
Savannah Gerrish ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Test Set ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Search Filters

Background Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. Researchers, healthcare professionals and policy makers need to be able to retrieve clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) efficiently and quickly from the literature. Despite the widespread use of CPGs in practice and policy formulation, no filter for retrieval of guidelines has been validated to date. The use of a validated search filter for CPGs would make their retrieval from major bibliographic databases more efficient. Objectives We aim to fill this gap by validating search filters for use in the systematic retrieval of CPGs and measure their performance according to sensitivity and precision. Methods We found four search filters for retrieval of CPGs (two CADTH, PubMed and University of Texas filters) which we will validate in three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed). We will derive a test set of CPGs from a search of the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. The citations retrieved will be randomly sorted and screened sequentially by two reviewers until at least 100 CPGs are included. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the treatment of any clinical condition, and that are produced by a group or organization (i.e., not authored by one person) . We will translate the filters into Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed syntax as appropriate. Then, we will run the strategies and assess whether the filters retrieved the citations in our test set. We will calculate and compare the sensitivity and precision of the four filters in each database. The limitations of the CADTH, PubMed and University of Texas search filters for each database will be assessed by examining the keywords in the titles and abstracts of the citations not found by the search filters. Discussion Decision makers, healthcare providers and researcher will be able to choose the most precise and sensitive search strategy among the four available, which will enable them to more efficiently identify relevant clinical practice guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines or clinical research guidelines?

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (9) ◽  
pp. 2054-2055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anto I. Bagić ◽  
Gregory L. Barkley ◽  
Chun Kee Chung ◽  
Xavier De Tiege ◽  
John S. Ebersole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Research Guidelines
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document