Literature DB >> 21375893

Does the evidence referenced in NICE guidelines reflect a primary care population?

Paul Scullard1, Asmaa Abdelhamid, Nick Steel, Nadeem Qureshi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are a common and important tool in providing high-quality health care. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines are now being used to set standards for assessing the quality of care in UK general practice, and so the evidence behind them needs to be relevant to primary care. AIM: To assess the extent to which guideline recommendations aimed at primary care are based on research conducted in a primary care setting. DESIGN OF STUDY: Purposeful selection of a sample of NICE guidelines for conditions commonly seen in general practice, with identification of the evidence underpinning recommendations that are relevant to primary care.
METHOD: Three recent NICE guidelines were selected: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, and respiratory tract infection in adults and children. Publications referenced as evidence for each individual primary care relevant recommendation were classified as to whether or not they were based in primary care relevant settings.
RESULTS: In the three guidelines assessed, 160 studies were used to derive the 115 recommendations that were relevant to, or aimed at primary care. A wide variation was found in the proportion of studies that recruited patients from a setting relevant to primary care (range 26% to 80%).
CONCLUSION: In this sample of three NICE guidelines, a significant proportion of studies underlying the primary care relevant recommendations were derived from studies that were not conducted in that setting. In producing guidelines for a primary care audience, the guideline development groups should include explicit information about the setting of studies underpinning the recommendations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21375893      PMCID: PMC3047343          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X561177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  19 in total

Review 1.  The need for research in primary care.

Authors:  Jan M De Maeseneer; Mieke L van Driel; Larry A Green; Chris van Weel
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-10-18       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?".

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jan 1-7       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Improving health care globally: a critical review of the necessity of family medicine research and recommendations to build research capacity.

Authors:  Chris van Weel; Walter W Rosser
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Research productivity in Australian general practice: what has changed since the 1990s?

Authors:  Deborah A Askew; Philip J Schluter; Jane M Gunn
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2008-07-21       Impact factor: 7.738

5.  Collaboration in primary-care research.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-01-17       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Randomized controlled trials: do they have external validity for patients with multiple comorbidities?

Authors:  Martin Fortin; Jonathan Dionne; Geneviève Pinho; Julie Gignac; José Almirall; Lise Lapointe
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  Developing a register of randomised controlled trials in primary care.

Authors:  C Silagy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-04-03

8.  How many problems do family physicians manage at each encounter? A WReN study.

Authors:  John W Beasley; Terry H Hankey; Rodney Erickson; Kurt C Stange; Marlon Mundt; Marguerite Elliott; Pamela Wiesen; James Bobula
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

9.  Appropriateness of hospital referral for hypertension.

Authors:  S Juncosa; R B Jones; S M McGhee
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-03-10

10.  Sources of variation in physician adherence with clinical guidelines: results from a factorial experiment.

Authors:  J B McKinlay; C L Link; K M Freund; L D Marceau; A B O'Donnell; K L Lutfey
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  8 in total

1.  Developing primary care: the contribution of primary care research networks.

Authors:  Stephen Peckham; Brian Hutchison
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2012-11

2.  Primary care evidence in clinical guidelines: a mixed methods study of practitioners' views.

Authors:  Asmaa Abdelhamid; Amanda Howe; Tim Stokes; Nadeem Qureshi; Nick Steel
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Developing a Clinician Friendly Tool to Identify Useful Clinical Practice Guidelines: G-TRUST.

Authors:  Allen F Shaughnessy; Akansha Vaswani; Bonnie K Andrews; Deborah R Erlich; Frank D'Amico; Joel Lexchin; Lisa Cosgrove
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing aqueous with alcoholic chlorhexidine antisepsis for the prevention of superficial surgical site infection after minor surgery in general practice: the AVALANCHE trial.

Authors:  C F Heal; D Charles; A Hardy; M Delpachitra; J Banks; M Wohlfahrt; Sabine Saednia; P Buettner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  Financial incentive schemes in primary care.

Authors:  Stephen Gillam
Journal:  J Healthc Leadersh       Date:  2015-09-08

Review 6.  Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?

Authors:  Anja Maria Brænd; Jørund Straand; Atle Klovning
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  Insight in the diagnosis and treatment of coeliac disease in general practice: A survey and case vignette study among 106 general practitioners.

Authors:  Maxine D Rouvroye; Pauline Slottje; Tom van Gils; Chris J Mulder; Jean W Muris; Dick Walstock; Marcel Reinders; Gerd Bouma
Journal:  Eur J Gen Pract       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.904

Review 8.  A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients.

Authors:  Nicholas Steel; Asmaa Abdelhamid; Tim Stokes; Helen Edwards; Robert Fleetcroft; Amanda Howe; Nadeem Qureshi
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 6.437

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.