Hayward C P M, Moffat K A, George T I, Proytcheva M, Iorio A
Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Int J Lab Hematol. 2016 May;38 Suppl 1:133-8. doi: 10.1111/ijlh.12501. Epub 2016 May 9.
Given the importance of evidence-based guidelines in health care, we surveyed the laboratory hematology community to determine their opinions on guideline development and their experience and interest in developing clinical hematology laboratory practice guidelines.
The study was conducted using an online survey, distributed to members of the International Society for Laboratory Hematology (ISLH) in 2015, with analysis of collected, anonymized responses.
A total of 245 individuals participated. Most worked in clinical and/or research laboratories (83%) or industry (11%). 42% felt there were gaps in current guidelines. The majority (58%) recommended that ISLH engages its membership in guideline development. Participants differed in their familiarity with, and use of, different organizations' guidelines. Participants felt it was important to follow best practice recommendations on guideline development, including engagement of experts, statement about conflict of interests and how they were managed, systematic review and grading evidence for recommendations, identifying recommendations lacking evidence or consensus, and public input and peer review of the guideline. Moreover, it was considered important to provide guidelines free of charge. Industry involvement in guidelines was considered less important.
The clinical laboratory hematology community has high expectations of laboratory practice guidelines that are consistent with recent recommendations on evidence-based guideline development.
鉴于循证指南在医疗保健中的重要性，我们对临床血液学实验室领域进行了调查，以确定他们对指南制定的看法，以及他们在制定临床血液学实验室实践指南方面的经验和兴趣。
本研究采用在线调查方式，于2015年分发给国际血液学检验学会（ISLH）成员，并对收集到的匿名回复进行分析。
共有245人参与。大多数人在临床和/或研究实验室工作（83%）或从事相关行业（11%）。42%的人认为当前指南存在差距。大多数人（58%）建议ISLH让其成员参与指南制定。参与者对不同组织指南的熟悉程度和使用情况各不相同。参与者认为遵循指南制定的最佳实践建议很重要，包括专家参与、利益冲突声明及其处理方式、系统评价和推荐证据分级、识别缺乏证据或共识的推荐，以及指南的公众意见和同行评审。此外，免费提供指南也被认为很重要。行业参与指南制定则被认为不太重要。
临床血液学实验室领域对与近期循证指南制定建议一致的实验室实践指南寄予厚望。
