Sica Gabriel, Harker-Murray Paul, Montori Victor M, Smith Steven A
Mayo Medical School, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2002 Sep;31(3):819-28. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8529(02)00016-6.
There are multiple practice guidelines published pertaining to diabetes care. Experts have formulated methodologic standards of guideline formulation. To determine whether practice guidelines pertaining to diabetes and published in peer-reviewed publications and the Internet adhered to established methodologic standards of guideline development. We identified all guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published between 1980 and 2000 using a computerized search of Medline, the Practice Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement Web site, and a global internet search engine. We used a previously validated 25-item assessment tool to determine guideline adherence to methodologic standards in three categories: guideline development and format, identification and summary of evidence, and formulation of recommendations. We conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine the influence of guideline author, publishing medium, year of publication, and guidelines length on adherence to methodologic standards of guideline development. We evaluated 43 guidelines: 33% published on the Internet, 66% in peer-reviewed journals; 51% published by organizations, and 49% by individual experts. Of a maximum of 25 methodologic standards, the number of standards adhered by a guideline was 9 (range, 2 to 19). Mean proportion (SD) of guidelines that adhered to methodologic standards on guideline development and format was 48% (28); on identification and summary of evidence, 21% (22); and on the formulation of recommendations, 36% (27). Longer guidelines had greater adherence to methodologic standards (P < 0.0001). Guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published on the internet and in peer-reviewed publications do not meet most methodologic standards of guideline development.
有多项关于糖尿病护理的实践指南已发布。专家们制定了指南制定的方法学标准。目的是确定在同行评审出版物和互联网上发表的有关糖尿病的实践指南是否符合既定的指南制定方法学标准。我们通过对医学文献数据库(Medline)、实践指南 clearinghouse、临床系统改进研究所网站以及全球互联网搜索引擎进行计算机检索,识别出1980年至2000年间发布的所有关于糖尿病护理的指南。我们使用一个先前经过验证的包含25个项目的评估工具,从三个类别来确定指南对方法学标准的遵循情况:指南制定与格式、证据识别与总结、以及推荐意见的制定。我们进行了多变量回归分析,以确定指南作者、出版媒介、出版年份和指南长度对遵循指南制定方法学标准的影响。我们评估了43项指南:33%在互联网上发布,66%在同行评审期刊上发表;51%由组织发布,49%由个人专家发布。在最多25项方法学标准中,一项指南遵循的标准数量为9项(范围为2至19项)。遵循指南制定和格式方面方法学标准的指南的平均比例(标准差)为48%(28);在证据识别和总结方面为21%(22);在推荐意见制定方面为36%(27)。较长的指南对方法学标准的遵循程度更高(P < 0.0001)。在互联网和同行评审出版物上发布的有关糖尿病护理的指南未达到指南制定的大多数方法学标准。
Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2002-9
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2016
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012-1-27
JAMA Intern Med. 2017-3-1