Literature DB >> 21324126

The Australian 'FORM' approach to guideline development: the quest for the perfect system.

Philipp Dahm1, Benjamin Djulbegovic.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines have been defined as systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decision-making about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. They play an important role in guiding evidence based clinical practice. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council has developed and pilot-tested a new framework for guideline development, the FORM approach, the role of which has yet to be further defined.
METHODS: We critically review the elements of the FORM approach and compare it to other, more established methods for rating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
RESULTS: FORM recognizes five factors that impact the strength of a recommendation which are the evidence base, consistency, clinical impact, generalizability and applicability. Consideration of these elements leads to a four-tiered rating system represented by the letters A ("body of evidence can be trusted to guide practice") to D ("body of evidence is weak and recommendation must be applied with caution"). It builds on other existing guideline methodologies such as those developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) groups. FORM distinguishes itself from other systems by its strong emphasis on applicability, which is separated out as its own category and relates the relevance of the body of evidence to the Australian healthcare system.
CONCLUSIONS: The FORM approach offers a methodologically rigorous alternative approach to guideline development that places particular emphasis on aspects of applicability. This feature is unique and may prompt future adoption by other guidelines systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21324126      PMCID: PMC3055217          DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol        ISSN: 1471-2288            Impact factor:   4.615


  13 in total

1.  Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.

Authors:  S West; V King; T S Carey; K N Lohr; N McKoy; S F Sutton; L Lux
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ)       Date:  2002-03

2.  Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

Authors:  T M Shaneyfelt; M F Mayo-Smith; J Rothwangl
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-05-26       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  An emerging consensus on grading recommendations?

Authors:  Gordon Guyatt; Gunn Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Regina Kunz; Nicola Magrini; Holger Schunemann
Journal:  ACP J Club       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb

4.  Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach.

Authors:  David M Eddy
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Mark Starr; Iain Chalmers; Mike Clarke; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 2.188

6.  Going from evidence to recommendations.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Gunn E Vist; Alessandro Liberati; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-10

Review 7.  What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-03

8.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.

Authors:  D L Sackett; W M Rosenberg; J A Gray; R B Haynes; W S Richardson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-01-13

9.  FORM: an Australian method for formulating and grading recommendations in evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Authors:  Susan Hillier; Karen Grimmer-Somers; Tracy Merlin; Philippa Middleton; Janet Salisbury; Rebecca Tooher; Adele Weston
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-02-28       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group.

Authors:  David Atkins; Martin Eccles; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Alessandro Liberati; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  3 in total

1.  From ABCs to GRADE: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's new rating system for clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Neil Bell; Sarah Connor Gorber; Marcello Tonelli; Kevin Pottie; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Elizabeth Shaw
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Attitudes and perceptions about clinical guidelines: a qualitative study with Spanish physicians.

Authors:  Ivan Solà; José Miguel Carrasco; Petra Díaz Del Campo; Javier Gracia; Carola Orrego; Flora Martínez; Anna Kotzeva; Imma Guillamón; Enrique Calderón; Idoia de Gaminde; Arturo Louro; Rafael Rotaeche; Flavia Salcedo; Paola Velázquez; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  A new impetus for guideline development and implementation: construction and evaluation of a toolbox.

Authors:  Mirrian A H W Hilbink; Marielle M T J Ouwens; Jako S Burgers; Rudolf B Kool
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 7.327

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.