IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0049864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guidelines for Guidelines: Are They Up to the Task? A Comparative Assessment of Clinical Practice Guideline Development Handbooks

Author

Listed:
  • Shabnam Ansari
  • Arash Rashidian

Abstract

Objectives: We conducted a comparative review of clinical practice guideline development handbooks. We aimed to identify the main guideline development tasks, assign weights to the importance of each task using expert opinions and identify the handbooks that provided a comprehensive coverage of the tasks. Methods: We systematically searched and included handbooks published (in English language) by national, international or professional bodies responsible for evidenced-based guideline development. We reviewed the handbooks to identify the main guideline development tasks and scored each handbook for each task from 0 (the handbook did not mention the task) to 2 (the task suitably addressed and explained), and calculated a weighted score for each handbook. The tasks included in over 75% of the handbooks were considered as ‘necessary’ tasks. Result: Nineteen guideline development handbooks and twenty seven main tasks were identified. The guideline handbooks’ weighted scores ranged from 100 to 220. Four handbooks scored over 80% of the maximum possible score, developed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Swiss Centre for International Health, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and World Health Organization. Necessary tasks were: selecting the guideline topic, determining the guideline scope, identifying relevant existing guidelines, involving the consumers, forming guideline development group,, developing clinical questions, systematic search for evidence, selecting relevant evidence, appraising identifies research evidence, making group decision, grading available evidence, creating recommendations, final stakeholder consultation, guideline implementation strategies, updating recommendations and correcting potential errors. Discussion: Adequate details for evidence based development of guidelines were still lacking from many handbooks. The tasks relevant to ethical issues and piloting were missing in most handbooks. The findings help decision makers in identifying the necessary tasks for guideline development, provide an updated comparative list of guideline development handbooks, and provide a checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of guideline development processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Shabnam Ansari & Arash Rashidian, 2012. "Guidelines for Guidelines: Are They Up to the Task? A Comparative Assessment of Clinical Practice Guideline Development Handbooks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-9, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0049864
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049864
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049864&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0049864?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Claudia K. Y. Lai & Daniel L. L. Lai & Jacqueline S. C. Ho & Kitty K. Y. Wong & Daphne S. K. Cheung, 2016. "Interdisciplinary collaboration in the use of a music‐with‐movement intervention to promote the wellbeing of people with dementia and their families: Development of an evidence‐based intervention prot," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 79-84, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0049864. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.