Literature DB >> 24196562

How do SAGES members rate its guidelines?

William W Hope1, William Richardson, Robert Fanelli, Dimitrios Stefanidis.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24196562     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3296-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  11 in total

1.  Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and health maintenance organizations.

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

2.  Adherence to practice guidelines: the role of specialty society guidelines.

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

Review 3.  Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies.

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

4.  SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery.

Authors:  D Wayne Overby; Keith N Apelgren; William Richardson; Robert Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  What is the utilization of the SAGES guidelines by its members?

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William S Richardson; Robert D Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

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

7.  GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

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

8.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

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

Review 9.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions.

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

Review 10.  The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines.

Authors:  D J Cook; N L Greengold; A G Ellrodt; S R Weingarten
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-08-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Recent publications by ochsner authors.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

2.  A comparison of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive adrenalectomy for adrenal malignancies.

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.