Spyridon S Marinopoulos1, Michael H Baumann. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA. smarino1@jhmi.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A core mission of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) is the education of its members, including continuing medical education (CME). The question of what evidence supports the effectiveness of CME activities became central to the ACCP's Educational Resources Division and its education committee. METHODS: An application for consideration as a topic for an evidenced-based guideline was submitted to the ACCP Health and Science Policy Committee in 2004. The application was approved contingent on acceptance by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as a topic for an evidence-based review to be awarded to an AHRQ evidence-based practice center (EPC). The topic was accepted by AHRQ, with a collaborative revision developed by AHRQ and ACCP of the focused questions submitted in the nomination. The AHRQ awarded the evidence review to The Johns Hopkins University EPC (Baltimore, MD). An expert writing panel was assembled comprising methodologists from the EPC, and recommendations were developed from the EPC evidence review and graded using the ACCP system of categorizing the strength of each recommendation and the quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This section describes the processes used to develop these guidelines, including identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the evidence; assessing the strength of evidence; and grading each recommendation.
BACKGROUND: A core mission of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) is the education of its members, including continuing medical education (CME). The question of what evidence supports the effectiveness of CME activities became central to the ACCP's Educational Resources Division and its education committee. METHODS: An application for consideration as a topic for an evidenced-based guideline was submitted to the ACCP Health and Science Policy Committee in 2004. The application was approved contingent on acceptance by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as a topic for an evidence-based review to be awarded to an AHRQ evidence-based practice center (EPC). The topic was accepted by AHRQ, with a collaborative revision developed by AHRQ and ACCP of the focused questions submitted in the nomination. The AHRQ awarded the evidence review to The Johns Hopkins University EPC (Baltimore, MD). An expert writing panel was assembled comprising methodologists from the EPC, and recommendations were developed from the EPC evidence review and graded using the ACCP system of categorizing the strength of each recommendation and the quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This section describes the processes used to develop these guidelines, including identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the evidence; assessing the strength of evidence; and grading each recommendation.
Authors: Kamran Ahmed; Tim T Wang; Hutan Ashrafian; Graham T Layer; Ara Darzi; Thanos Athanasiou Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Brian C Lee; Karyn D Ruiz-Cordell; Steven M Haimowitz; Cara Williams; Bruce S Stambler; Anthia Mandarakas Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Brian Lee; Dace Trence; Silvio Inzucchi; Jay Lin; Steven Haimowitz; Elizabeth Wilkerson; Cara Williams; Marc Mosier; Terry Dex Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 2.945
Authors: Julia Bluestone; Peter Johnson; Judith Fullerton; Catherine Carr; Jessica Alderman; James BonTempo Journal: Hum Resour Health Date: 2013-10-01
Authors: Angela Akol; Joyce Nalugya; Sylvia Nshemereirwe; Juliet N Babirye; Ingunn Marie Stadskleiv Engebretsen Journal: Int J Ment Health Syst Date: 2017-08-24