Outcomes of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christel Bahtsevani ◽  
Giggi Udén ◽  
Ania Willman

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether evidence-based clinical practice in health care improves outcomes for patients, personnel, and/or organizations.Methods: A systematic review of studies was conducted with various quantitative and qualitative methods up to the Spring of 2002. Protocols were used in quality assessment. Data synthesis is descriptive in a narrative form.Results: Of 305 assessed articles, eight studies were included. The outcomes in the included studies were related to the experiences of patients and personnel and to organization concerning changed patient care and resource utilization. Because the included studies are heterogeneous in design, focus of research area, and scientific quality, the scientific foundation for the findings is weak. There is some support that evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, when put to use, improve outcomes (i) for patients—less likelihood of showing worsening of skin condition and disruption of skin condition improves more rapidly for infants; (ii) for personnel—support in daily work situation; and (iii) for organizations—decreased admission rates and length of stay, less resource utilization and reduced costs.Conclusions: There is a need for further research as the findings are based on a rather limited number of studies. There is a tendency toward support for the idea that outcomes improve for patients, personnel, or organizations if clinical practice in health care is evidence-based, that is, if evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are used, although these findings could be specific to the settings and context of the studies reported in this systematic review.

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1041
Author(s):  
Anggie Ramírez-Morera ◽  
Mario Tristan ◽  
Juan Carlos Vazquez

Background: The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EB-CPGs) has increasing global growth; however, the certainty of impact on patients and health systems, as well as the magnitude of the impact, is not apparent. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of EB-CPGs for the improvement of the quality of health care in three dimensions: structure, process and results in the patient for the management of cardiovascular disease. Methods: We followed the methods described by the Cochrane Handbook and present a descriptive analysis because of the high heterogeneity found across the included studies. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, between 1990 and June 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were selected. Three authors independently carried out the data extraction, using a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care form. Results: Of the total of 84 interventions included in the nine RCTs evaluated, three (4%) were related to health care structure, 54 (64%) to the health care delivery process and 27 (32%) to patient outcomes. Regarding the impact of using the EB-CPGs, in 55 interventions (65%), there were no significant differences between control and experimental groups. In four interventions (5%), the result favoured the control group, and the result favoured the intervention group on 25 of the interventions (30%). Conclusions: This systematic review showed that EB-CPGs could be useful to improve the process and structure of health care and, to a lesser extent, to improve the patients’ outcomes. After analysing many studies, we could have one more hypothesis for further research, which could shed more light upon those undiscovered variables that might interfere with the use of the EB-CPGs. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42013003589


F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1041
Author(s):  
Anggie Ramírez-Morera ◽  
Mario Tristan ◽  
Juan Carlos Vazquez

Background: The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EB-CPGs) has increasing global growth; however, the certainty of impact on patients and health systems, as well as the magnitude of the impact, is not apparent. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of EB-CPGs for the improvement of the quality of health care in three dimensions: structure, process and results in the patient for the management of cardiovascular disease. Methods: We followed the methods described by the Cochrane Handbook and present a descriptive analysis because of the high heterogeneity found across the included studies. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, between 1990 and June 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were selected. Three authors independently carried out the data extraction, using a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care form. Results: Of the total of 84 interventions included in the nine RCTs evaluated, three (4%) were related to health care structure, 54 (64%) to the health care delivery process and 27 (32%) to patient outcomes. Regarding the impact of using the EB-CPGs, in 55 interventions (65%), there were no significant differences between control and experimental groups. In four interventions (5%), the result favoured the control group, and the result favoured the intervention group on 25 of the interventions (30%). Conclusions: This systematic review showed that EB-CPGs could be useful to improve the process and structure of health care and, to a lesser extent, to improve the patients’ outcomes. After analysing many studies, we could have one more hypothesis for further research, which could shed more light upon those undiscovered variables that might interfere with the use of the EB-CPGs. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42013003589


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Tapia-López Elena ◽  
Virgilio Sacha ◽  
Ariel Bardach

Abstract Background Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2s;16 (2s;4) ◽  
pp. S1-S48
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) re-engineered its definition of clinical guidelines as follows: “clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options.” This new definition departs from a 2-decade old definition from a 1990 IOM report that defined guidelines as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.” The revised definition clearly distinguishes between the term “clinical practice guideline” and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. The IOM committee acknowledged that for many clinical domains, high quality evidence was lacking or even nonexistent. Even though the guidelines are important decisionmaking tools, along with expert clinical judgment and patient preference, their value and impact remains variable due to numerous factors. Some of the many factors that impede the development of clinical practice guidelines include bias due to a variety of conflicts of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Consequently, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence, as recently recommended by the IOM. Chronic pain is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon associated with significant economic, social, and health outcomes. Interventional pain management is an emerging specialty facing a disproportionate number of challenges compared to established medical specialties, including the inappropriate utilization of ineffective and unsafe techniques. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 5 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance; dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably; and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payers. Key words: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), comparative effectiveness research (CER), clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, interventional pain management, evidence synthesis, methodological quality assessment, clinical relevance, recommendations.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Cheng ◽  
Michael A. Mont ◽  
Stuart B. Goodman ◽  
Rafael J Sierra ◽  
Quanjun Cui ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: There are many treatment options for patients who have osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) and management strategies vary widely both among and within individual countries. Although many researchers have attempted to elucidate the optimal strategies for managing this disease, the lack of large-scale randomized control trials and the lack of agreement on disease staging have curtailed the development of clear-cut guidelines.Methods: The Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) group sought to address three questions for the management of patients who have ONFH: (1) What imaging studies are most sensitive and specific for the diagnostic evaluation of patients who have ONFH?; (2)What is the best treatment strategy for preventing disease progression in patients who have pre-collapse lesions?; and (3) What is the best treatment strategy for patients who have post-collapse disease? The PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) format was used to formulate the search strategy for each research question. A systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. ARCO participants have been allocated to three groups, each representing one of the PICO questions. After qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data extracted from studies pertaining to each of the three research questions, a set of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines will be proposed for the management of patients who have ONFH. Discussion: It is not always clear which treatment method is optimal for the management of ONFH. Thus, many surgeons have developed and performed various procedures based on various patient-specific factors. As there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for various stages of disease, it was clear that developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines would provide more structure and uniformity to management of these patients. Therefore, the results of this systematic review will lead to the development guidelines that may improve patient-care strategies and result in better outcomes for patients who have ONFH.Systematic Review Registration: Registration with PROSPERO has been submitted and is pending.


Pulse ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Anisur Rahman

Bangladesh is a country with a large population. The health care needs of this huge population are met by a plethora of health care workers many of whom are not even trained formally for this work (traditional healers). Even in those who are trained in formal medicine we find doctors with various academic background and training. There is an amulgation of medical degrees which is not seen anywhere else in the world. As a result the diagnostic and clinical approach to patient varies widely. This setup denies the patient the standard of care that he or she deserves. In this context clinical practice guidelines can play a major role in standard patient care. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed to assist practitioners’ and patients' decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. Many terms have been developed including practice guidelines, practice standards, practice parameters, practice policies, protocols, algorithms, and critical paths, but the collective purpose is the same - reduction in unnecessary variability of care. Historically it started in USA, from attempts to monitor quality of care and cost of care. Experimental Medical Review Organizations were started in USA in 1971 by the National Center for Health Services Research and Development, which provided grants to assess quality of care. Legislation was signed into law as part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989, creating the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) [1]. A guideline is a stepwise evaluation of a clinical diagnosis or management strategy that requires observations to be made, decisions to be considered, and actions to be taken. Processes used during development of guidelines include informal and formal consensus methods, evidence-based methods, and explicit methods. Informal consensus method leads to poor quality and have been largely abandoned. Formal consensus development, based on the delphi technique is a stepwise process leading to recommendations that reflect the extent of agreement amongst individuals. This technique is limited in that it does not rely on explicit linkage between recommendation and the quality of the evidence reviewed. Evidence based methods have emerged with specific rules defined to link recommendations and supporting evidence [2]. Basic Steps in Guideline Development [3], [4] have been standardized by various international bodies and may be implemented in our country with a few adjustments. There are still methodological problems that have been identified. These include the needs to further define consistent definitions, to avoid publication bias, to maintain sensitivity to evolution in scientific understanding, and to develop criteria for validity of clinical research methods. Economic factors affecting guideline development also need to be avoided and include specialist interests, payer interests, and the need to disclose economic self interests [5]. A final problem is the challenge of disseminating already written guidelines to physicians and presents a formidable task unto itself and adds to the large burden of new data and information practitioners already have available. Guidelines should, therefore, be viewed as broad templates to assist physicians or patients in various clinical circumstances [6]. Clinical practice guideline is becoming an important determinant of how medicine and surgery is practiced in Western societies. It is time that this strategy is also introduced in Bangladesh to reduce variability in care, improve quality, measure outcomes, and reduces costs. It is expected of such institution as BCPS, and the professional bodies like Society of Surgeons and Association of Physicians of Bangladesh to initiate and implement such clinical guidelines.Prof. Dr. Anisur RahmanSenior Consultant & CoordinatorDepartment of General and Laparoscopic SurgeryApollo Hospitals DhakaReferencesGosfield A. Clinical practice guidelines and the law: applications and implications. In: Health Law Handbook. New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan; 1994:67-99.Roper WL, Winkenwerder W, Hackharth GM, Krakauer H. Effectiveness in health care: an initiative to evaluate and improve medical practice. NEJM. 1988; 319:1197-1202.American Medical Association. Office of Quality Assurance. Attributes to Guide the Development of Practice Parameters. Chicago.Schoenbaum SC, Sundwall DN, Reqman D. Using Clinical Practice Guidelines to Evaluate Quality of Care. AHCPR 95-0045, 1995;1&2.Ayres JD. The Use and Abuse of Medical Practice Guidelines. J Legal Med. 1994; 15:421-443.Tunis SR, Hayward R, Wilson MC. Internists’ attitudes about clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 120:956-963.DOI: 10.3329/pulse.v3i1.6542Pulse Vol.3(1) July 2009 p.3


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document