American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Opportunities and Challenges

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (24) ◽  
pp. 4022-4026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R. Somerfield ◽  
Kaitlin Einhaus ◽  
Karen L. Hagerty ◽  
Melissa C. Brouwers ◽  
Jerome Seidenfeld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Clinical Tools ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Impact

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published its first clinical practice guideline, which focused on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors, in 1994. Since then, ASCO has published 24 additional guidelines or technology assessments on a range of topics and is developing 11 additional guidelines. Guidelines are among ASCO's most valued products, according to membership surveys and data from the JCO.org Web site. However, the same data from ASCO members have highlighted a number of limitations to the guideline program. These relate to the timelines of guideline updates, difficulties locating guidelines and related products, and challenges to implementing ASCO guidelines in everyday clinical practice. This article outlines the concrete steps that the ASCO Health Services Committee (HSC) is taking to address these limitations, including the institution of a more aggressive guideline updating schedule, a transition from narrative to systematic literature reviews to support the practice recommendations, a new Board of Directors–approved policy to permit endorsement of other groups’ guidelines, and a robust Clinical Tools and Resources program that offers a range of guideline dissemination and implementation aids. Additional work is underway to establish stronger and deeper collaborations with practicing oncologists to expand their role in the review, field testing, and implementation of guideline clinical tools and resources. Finally, the HSC is discussing evaluation of the guidelines program to maximize the impact of ASCO clinical practice guidelines on clinical decision making and, ultimately, the quality of cancer care.

scholarly journals A user guide to the American Society of Hematology clinical practice guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
pp. 2095-2110
Author(s):  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Adam Cuker ◽  
Robert Kunkle ◽  
Ignacio Neumann ◽  
Julie Panepinto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Immune Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cell Disease ◽  
Presentation Formats ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Many

Abstract Since November 2018, Blood Advances has published American Society of Hematology (ASH) clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism, immune thrombocytopenia, and sickle cell disease. More ASH guidelines on these and other topics are forthcoming. These guidelines have been developed using consistent processes, methods, terminology, and presentation formats. In this article, we describe how patients, clinicians, policymakers, researchers, and others may use ASH guidelines and the many related derivates by describing how to interpret information and how to apply it to clinical decision-making. Also, by exploring how these documents are developed, we aim to clarify their limitations and possible inappropriate usage.

1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on November 7, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 793-795 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
American Society

OBJECTIVE The primary objective was to update the 1996 clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast and colorectal cancers. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials. OPTIONS Six tumor markers for colorectal cancer and eight for breast cancer were considered. They could be recommended or not for routine use or for special circumstances. In addition to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, CA 27.29 also was considered in regard to circulatory tumor markers for breast cancer. OUTCOMES In general, the significant health outcomes identified for use in making clinical practice guidelines (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost effectiveness) were used. EVIDENCE A computerized literature search from 1994 to July 1997 was performed. VALUES The same values for Use, Utility, and Levels of Evidence were used by the Committee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS The same benefit, harms, and costs were used. RECOMMENDATION No changes in any guidelines were recommended (see text). VALIDATION External review by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee and by ASCO Board of Directors. SPONSOR American Society of Clinical Oncology.

scholarly journals Ehlers-Danlos syndromes: state of the art on clinical practice guidelines

RMD Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. e000790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Sulli ◽  
Rosaria Talarico ◽  
Carlo Alberto Scirè ◽  
Tadej Avcin ◽  
Marco Castori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Unmet Needs ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Reference Network ◽  
Publication Type

ObjectiveTo report the effort of the European Reference Network for Rare and Complex CONnective tissue and musculoskeletal diseases NETwork working group on Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS) and related disorders to assess current available clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) specifically addressed to EDS, in order to identify potential clinician and patient unmet needs.MethodsSystematic literature search in PUBMED and EMBASE based on controlled terms (MeSH and Emtree) and keywords of the disease and publication type (CPGs). All the published articles were revised in order to identify existing CPGs on diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of EDS.ResultsLiterature revision detected the absence of papers reporting good quality CPGs to optimise EDS patient care. The current evidence-based literature regarding clinical guidelines for the EDS was limited in size and quality, and there is insufficient research exploring the clinical features and interventions, and clinical decision-making are currently based on theoretical and limited research evidences.ConclusionsMany clinician and patient unmet needs have been identified.

Clinical Practice Guidelines: What Are They? Where Are They? How Good Are They?

2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 343-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Renaud Smith ◽  
Ann Donze
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health Care Team ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Practice Setting ◽  
Team Members

PREVIOUS COLUMNS HAVE FOCUSED on utilizing evidence-based practice to incorporate the best evidence into clinical practice. This column builds upon that knowledge and describes a specific type of presynthesized evidence meant to guide and inform practice: clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Clinical practice guidelines have been in existence for years, and their development is based on the desire to move research into practice and promote consistency among practitioners.1 Clinical practice guidelines are tools for health care team members to use to enhance their knowledge and skill in integrating evidence into the clinical decision making process. This column defines CPGs and the significance they have in the practice setting and provides tools and resources necessary to locate, develop, and critically appraise them.

scholarly journals A71 RECOMMENDATION REVERSALS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 34-37
Author(s):  
R Gholami ◽  
N Gimpaya ◽  
R Khan ◽  
M A Scaffidi ◽  
R Bansal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Epidemiologic Study ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Accepted Practice ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based resources designed to inform clinical decision making. Often, superior evidence will support the inclusion of novel procedures and practices to replace older recommendations. Recommendation reversals occur when (a) superior quality evidence emerges to suggest the harm or non-beneficence of prior recommendations, and (b) that recommendation is not supplanted by a newer one. Aims The primary objective of this study was to describe the content, frequency and rationale for recommendation reversals in CPGs published by gastroenterological societies. Methods For this meta-epidemiologic study, we considered two criteria to define a recommendation reversal: (a) the more recent CPG makes a recommendation that contradicts a previously accepted practice; and (b) the prior recommendation is not replaced by any novel intervention. We searched CPGs published by 20 major GI societies from 1991- 2019. Guidelines were included if had at least two iterations with the same title and used a valid evidence rating system (such as GRADE). Explicit recommendations which reported definite levels of evidence and strength of recommendation were extracted. Results We identified 1022 clinical guidelines from GI societies over 28 years. 292 CPGs were included for data synthesis. 5985 explicit statements were extracted. 12 reversals were confirmed and are summarized in the Table. Six reversals (50.0%) occurred due to studies reporting non-beneficence and 3 (25.0%) occrred due to studies reporting harm. Three recommendations (25.0%) were reversed due to new clinical trials; 3 (25.0%) due to systematic reviews or meta-analyses; and 2 to conform with CPGs of other societies (16.7%). Conclusions We describe recommendation reversals made in gastroenterology CPGs, and the reasons thereof. Investigation of recommendation reversals allows for the identification of low-value medical practices. This reinforces the need for GI CPG committees to (1) iteratively review guidelines to re-evaluate recommendations made on low-quality evidence and; (2) refrain from making recommendations when evidence for the same is weak. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin Dmitriew ◽  
Robert Ohle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome ◽  
Potential Barriers

Abstract Background Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS incorporate all available evidence into four key recommendations. In order to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, a clinical decision aid was created. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians prior to implementation of the guideline recommendations in a multicentre step wedge cluster randomized control trial. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine emergency room physicians working at five sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators to guideline recommendation uptake and use. Responses were analysed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, and overarching themes describing these barriers and facilitators were identified. Results Two themes and six subthemes encompassing 13 theoretical domains were identified. These included clinical decision-making support, awareness of the evidence, social factors, expected consequences, ability of physicians to acquire the necessary data and ease of use. A majority of interviewees anticipated that the guideline recommendations would support clinical decision making and more effectively risk-stratify patients. Other facilitators included endorsement of the guidelines by professional organizations and peers. Barriers to implementation include the fact that laboratory testing and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. The complexity of the clinical decision aid and concerns about test specificity were also identified as potential barriers to use. Conclusion Physicians were amenable to using the AAS guideline recommendations to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use. A structured intervention should be developed to address the identified barriers and leverage the facilitators in order to ensure successful implementation. Our findings may have implications for the implementation of other guidelines used in emergency departments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document