IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i2p685-d720104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development—A Survey of 585 Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Marie-Louise Kirkegaard Mikkelsen

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Anja Ussing

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Karen Christina Walker

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
    The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

  • Jeanett Friis Rohde

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
    The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

  • Henning Keinke Andersen

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Simon Tarp

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Mina Nicole Händel

    (The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
    The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

Abstract

The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen & Marie-Louise Kirkegaard Mikkelsen & Anja Ussing & Karen Christina Walker & Jeanett Friis Rohde & Henning Keinke Andersen & Simon Tarp & Mina Nicole Händel, 2022. "Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development—A Survey of 585 Recommendations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-10, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:2:p:685-:d:720104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/685/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/685/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Mike Clarke & Carrol Gamble & Julian P T Higgins & Jonathan A C Sterne & Paula R Williamson & Jamie J Kirkham, 2014. "Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Katherine Davis & Sarah L Gorst & Nicola Harman & Valerie Smith & Elizabeth Gargon & Douglas G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Sean Tunis & Paula R Williamson, 2018. "Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    2. Gil Amarilyo & Daniel E Furst & Jennifer M P Woo & Wen Li & Henning Bliddal & Robin Christensen & Simon Tarp, 2016. "Agreements and Discrepancies between FDA Reports and Journal Papers on Biologic Agents Approved for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Research Project," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Julia H. Littell & Therese D. Pigott & Karianne H. Nilsen & Jennifer Roberts & Travis K. Labrum, 2023. "Functional Family Therapy for families of youth (age 11–18) with behaviour problems: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), September.
    4. Takeshi Seta & Yoshimitsu Takahashi & Yoshinori Noguchi & Satoru Shikata & Tatsuya Sakai & Kyoko Sakai & Yukitaka Yamashita & Takeo Nakayama, 2017. "Effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the prevention of primary gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic people: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing risk ratio with risk differ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Julia H. Littell, 2024. "The Logic of Generalization From Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Impact Evaluations," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(3), pages 427-460, June.
    6. Karen L Hughes & Jamie J Kirkham & Mike Clarke & Paula R Williamson, 2019. "Assessing the impact of a research funder’s recommendation to consider core outcome sets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-12, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:2:p:685-:d:720104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.