BACKGROUND: The development of practice guidelines should take into consideration the opinions of end users. The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has implemented several changes in its guideline development and dissemination process based on previous end-user input. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was conducted via e-mail solicitation in September 2011. Respondents were asked to submit their feedback on the 26 guidelines produced by our society using a 32-item questionnaire and to suggest topics for new guideline development and areas of improvement. RESULTS: Responses from the survey were received by 494 people, of whom 474 (96 %) were clinicians; 373 (75 %) were general, laparoscopic, or bariatric surgeons; and 324 (65 %) held leadership roles within their institution. Most respondents were 35-44 years old (36 %), male (83 %), and had been in practice for over 10 years (54 %). A total of 383 (81 %) had used our guidelines, and, of those, 96 % agreed with their content. Guideline quality was rated 4.34; value 4.27; and ease of access 3.97 on a five-point Likert scale. The most commonly referenced guideline in the survey regarded surgical treatment of reflux (67 %), followed by laparoscopy during pregnancy (51 %). The three most common reasons guidelines were accessed were to update knowledge (68 %), to maximize patient care through evidence-based treatment (51 %), and to obtain a critical literature review. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents indicated they greatly value and agree with our guidelines. These results indicate that recent efforts to improve our guidelines have succeeded.
BACKGROUND: The development of practice guidelines should take into consideration the opinions of end users. The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has implemented several changes in its guideline development and dissemination process based on previous end-user input. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was conducted via e-mail solicitation in September 2011. Respondents were asked to submit their feedback on the 26 guidelines produced by our society using a 32-item questionnaire and to suggest topics for new guideline development and areas of improvement. RESULTS: Responses from the survey were received by 494 people, of whom 474 (96 %) were clinicians; 373 (75 %) were general, laparoscopic, or bariatric surgeons; and 324 (65 %) held leadership roles within their institution. Most respondents were 35-44 years old (36 %), male (83 %), and had been in practice for over 10 years (54 %). A total of 383 (81 %) had used our guidelines, and, of those, 96 % agreed with their content. Guideline quality was rated 4.34; value 4.27; and ease of access 3.97 on a five-point Likert scale. The most commonly referenced guideline in the survey regarded surgical treatment of reflux (67 %), followed by laparoscopy during pregnancy (51 %). The three most common reasons guidelines were accessed were to update knowledge (68 %), to maximize patient care through evidence-based treatment (51 %), and to obtain a critical literature review. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents indicated they greatly value and agree with our guidelines. These results indicate that recent efforts to improve our guidelines have succeeded.
Authors: Charles L Bennett; Mark R Somerfield; David G Pfister; Cecilia Tomori; Sofia Yakren; Peter B Bach Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lucian L Leape; Joel S Weissman; Eric C Schneider; Robert N Piana; Constantine Gatsonis; Arnold M Epstein Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J M Grimshaw; R E Thomas; G MacLennan; C Fraser; C R Ramsay; L Vale; P Whitty; M P Eccles; L Matowe; L Shirran; M Wensing; R Dijkstra; C Donaldson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Gordon Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Elie A Akl; Regina Kunz; Gunn Vist; Jan Brozek; Susan Norris; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Paul Glasziou; Hans DeBeer; Roman Jaeschke; David Rind; Joerg Meerpohl; Philipp Dahm; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-31 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Peter Tugwell; Andre Knottnerus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Howard Balshem; Mark Helfand; Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan Norris; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: J L Brozek; E A Akl; P Alonso-Coello; D Lang; R Jaeschke; J W Williams; B Phillips; M Lelgemann; A Lethaby; J Bousquet; G H Guyatt; H J Schünemann Journal: Allergy Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: Jonathan J Hue; Peter Ahorukomeye; Katherine Bingmer; Lauren Drapalik; John B Ammori; Scott M Wilhelm; Luke D Rothermel; Christopher W Towe Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 3.453