Susan E Sutherland1, Debora C Matthews. 1. Department of Dentistry, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. susan.sutherland@sw.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-quality systematic reviews are the basis of valid, reliable clinical practice guidelines, or CPGs. In 1999, a Canadian collaboration of dentists embarked on the process of developing guidelines. METHODS: The Canadian Collaboration on Clinical Practice Guidelines in Dentistry, or CCCD, is a coalition of multiple stakeholders from organized dentistry and academia whose mandate is to develop CPGs for practicing dentists. In the development of the first CPG based on a systematic review of the literature, the CCCD Methodology Resource Group (of which the authors were co-chairs) gained some valuable insights. The authors wrote this article to share their experiences and lessons learned and to offer practical advice to others who may undertake similar projects. RESULTS: The authors identify a number of methodological issues and logistical problems and make suggestions for effective management of the review and guideline development processes. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Systematic reviews and the development of CPGs require rigorous methodology, as well as input from content experts and clinicians, to ensure validity and relevance. The processes are costly and time-intensive, but the anticipated outcome is enhanced clinical decision making and improved oral health.
BACKGROUND: High-quality systematic reviews are the basis of valid, reliable clinical practice guidelines, or CPGs. In 1999, a Canadian collaboration of dentists embarked on the process of developing guidelines. METHODS: The Canadian Collaboration on Clinical Practice Guidelines in Dentistry, or CCCD, is a coalition of multiple stakeholders from organized dentistry and academia whose mandate is to develop CPGs for practicing dentists. In the development of the first CPG based on a systematic review of the literature, the CCCD Methodology Resource Group (of which the authors were co-chairs) gained some valuable insights. The authors wrote this article to share their experiences and lessons learned and to offer practical advice to others who may undertake similar projects. RESULTS: The authors identify a number of methodological issues and logistical problems and make suggestions for effective management of the review and guideline development processes. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Systematic reviews and the development of CPGs require rigorous methodology, as well as input from content experts and clinicians, to ensure validity and relevance. The processes are costly and time-intensive, but the anticipated outcome is enhanced clinical decision making and improved oral health.
Authors: Janaina Salmos; Marleny E M M Gerbi; Rodivan Braz; Emanuel S S Andrade; Belmiro C E Vasconcelos; Ricardo V Bessa-Nogueira Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Gergo Mitov; Michael Dörr; Frank P Nothdurft; Florian Draenert; Peter R Pospiech Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-10-04 Impact factor: 3.573