Suppr超能文献

共识和循证指南中的不一致和不恰当的不一致建议:实证分析。

Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis.

机构信息

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

出版信息

BMJ. 2021 Nov 25;375:e066045. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066045.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines.

DESIGN

Empirical analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness).

RESULTS

The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach.

CONCLUSION

Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.

摘要

目的

研究基于共识的指南与基于证据的指南在推荐强度与证据质量的一致性方面是否存在差异。

设计

实证分析。

资料来源

截至 2021 年 3 月 27 日,美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会(ACC/AHA)和美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)制定的指南。

研究选择

明确将推荐分为共识或基于证据的类别,与其余文本分开,并包含证据质量和推荐强度。

数据提取

两位作者独立提取推荐特征,包括推荐类型(共识或基于证据)、用于制定推荐的分级系统、推荐强度和证据质量。研究团队还计算了不相符的推荐数量(低质量证据的强烈推荐)和不恰当的不相符的推荐(不符合分级推荐评估、制定和评价标准的推荐)。

结果

研究纳入了 12 项 ACC/AHA 指南,生成了 1434 条推荐,纳入了 69 项 ASCO 指南,生成了 1094 条推荐。在 504 项基于低质量证据的 ACC/AHA 推荐中,200 项(40%)为基于共识,304 项(60%)为基于证据;在 404 项基于低质量证据的 ASCO 推荐中,292 项(72%)为基于共识,112 项(28%)为基于证据。在 ACC/AHA 和 ASCO 指南中,共识方法产生了更多不相符的推荐(ACC/AHA:比值比 2.1,95%置信区间 1.5 至 3.1;ASCO:2.9,1.1 至 7.8)和不恰当的不相符的推荐(ACC/AHA:2.6,1.7 至 3.7;ASCO:5.1,1.6 至 16.0),而不是基于证据的方法。

结论

基于共识的指南产生的违反循证医学原则的推荐多于基于证据的指南。确保证据质量与推荐强度的适当一致性是制定“可靠”指南的关键。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bc8f/8613613/ab18a8eb0f83/yaol066045.f1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验