Literature DB >> 11572738

Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated?

P G Shekelle1, E Ortiz, S Rhodes, S C Morton, M P Eccles, J M Grimshaw, S H Woolf.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Practice guidelines need to be up-to-date to be useful to clinicians. No published methods are available for assessing whether existing practice guidelines are still valid, nor does any empirical information exist regarding how often such assessments need to be made.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the current validity of 17 clinical practice guidelines published by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that are still in circulation, and to use this information to estimate how quickly guidelines become obsolete. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed criteria for defining when a guideline needs updating, mailed surveys to members of the original AHRQ guideline panels (n = 170; response rate, 71%), and searched the literature for evidence through March 2000 (n = 6994 titles yielding 173 articles plus 159 new guidelines on the same topics). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of new evidence calling for a major, minor, or no update of the 17 guidelines; survival analysis of the rate at which guidelines became outdated.
RESULTS: For 7 guidelines, new evidence and expert judgment indicated that a major update is required; 6 were found to be in need of a minor update; 3 were judged as still valid; and for 1 guideline, we could reach no conclusion. Survival analysis indicated that about half the guidelines were outdated in 5.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0-6.6 years). The point at which no more than 90% of the guidelines were still valid was 3.6 years (95% CI, 2.6-4.6 years).
CONCLUSIONS: More than three quarters of the AHRQ guidelines need updating. As a general rule, guidelines should be reassessed for validity every 3 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11572738     DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.12.1461

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  119 in total

1.  Updating guidelines on stable angina.

Authors:  T Lancaster; M Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-24

Review 2.  Strengthening research to improve the practice and management of long-term care.

Authors:  Penny Hollander Feldman; Robert L Kane
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 3.  Impact of clinical practice guidelines on the clinical microbiology laboratory.

Authors:  Peter H Gilligan
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Evidence Based Surgery: How Difficult is the Implication in Routine Practice?

Authors:  Gaurav Maheshwari; Namrata Maheshwari
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2012-01

5.  Clinical guidance: Guidance on guidance.

Authors:  C Scully; A N Robinson; J A D Cameron
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 1.626

6.  Practice Guideline Development, Grading, and Assessment.

Authors:  Joseph E Cruz; Germin Fahim; Kelly Moore
Journal:  P T       Date:  2015-12

7.  Managing the alert process at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital.

Authors:  Gilad J Kuperman; Rosanna Diamente; Vrinda Khatu; Terri Chan-Kraushar; Pete Stetson; Aurelia Boyer; Mary Cooper
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2005

8.  Guidelines and rules: friend or foe?

Authors:  Jonathan Adler
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2007-01-22

9.  Heterogeneity in cancer guidelines: should we eradicate or tolerate?

Authors:  G Pentheroudakis; R Stahel; H Hansen; N Pavlidis
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2008-07-28       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommendations 2009.

Authors:  Julie Kreyenbuhl; Robert W Buchanan; Faith B Dickerson; Lisa B Dixon
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 9.306

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.