TY - JOUR
T1 - Methodological approaches for developing, reporting, and assessing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
T2 - a systematic survey
AU - Yao, Xiaomei
AU - Xia, Jun
AU - Jin, Yinghui
AU - Shen, Quan
AU - Wang, Qi
AU - Zhu, Ying
AU - McNair, Sheila
AU - Sussman, Jonathan
AU - Wang, Zhiwen
AU - Florez, Ivan D.
AU - Zeng, Xian Tao
AU - Brouwers, Melissa
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - Objective: To produce a mapping and feature summary of approaches and tools available for the clinical practice guideline (CPG) community to develop, report, or assess four types of CPGs: (1) Standard original (or de novo) CPGs, (2) Rapid original CPGs, (3) Adapted/adopted CPGs, and (4) Updated CPGs. Study design: The systematic literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to October 13, 2020. Two websites that collect and recommend approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess CPGs were also searched: Guidelines International Network and Equator Network. We screened the search results to include methodological papers that aimed to develop specific approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess any of the aforementioned four CPG types. Results: Among 10,581 citations, 46 papers reporting 46 approaches/tools were included. Of these 46 approaches/tools, 33 were about CPG development, seven were for CPG reporting, and six for CPG assessment. Among the 33 development approaches/tools, 26 did not state usability or validity information; but nine from 13 reporting or assessment approaches/tools did. Conclusions: This study provides an overall summary of the currently available approaches/tools, which serves to improve users’ understanding to pave the way for informed choice and application.
AB - Objective: To produce a mapping and feature summary of approaches and tools available for the clinical practice guideline (CPG) community to develop, report, or assess four types of CPGs: (1) Standard original (or de novo) CPGs, (2) Rapid original CPGs, (3) Adapted/adopted CPGs, and (4) Updated CPGs. Study design: The systematic literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to October 13, 2020. Two websites that collect and recommend approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess CPGs were also searched: Guidelines International Network and Equator Network. We screened the search results to include methodological papers that aimed to develop specific approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess any of the aforementioned four CPG types. Results: Among 10,581 citations, 46 papers reporting 46 approaches/tools were included. Of these 46 approaches/tools, 33 were about CPG development, seven were for CPG reporting, and six for CPG assessment. Among the 33 development approaches/tools, 26 did not state usability or validity information; but nine from 13 reporting or assessment approaches/tools did. Conclusions: This study provides an overall summary of the currently available approaches/tools, which serves to improve users’ understanding to pave the way for informed choice and application.
KW - Assessment
KW - Clinical practice guidelines
KW - Development
KW - Methodology
KW - Report
KW - Systematic survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127159082&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.02.015
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.02.015
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35271968
AN - SCOPUS:85127159082
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 146
SP - 77
EP - 85
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -