Literature DB >> 7842059

Development of the AHCPR-sponsored heart failure guideline: methodologic and procedural issues.

D C Hadorn, D Baker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: RAND, a nonprofit research and policy organization, served as contractor for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR)-sponsored guideline on the management of patients with heart failure due to left-ventricular systolic dysfunction. PANEL: At meetings of the 16-member panel, discussions concerning practice recommendations were held until a consensus was reached. A draft algorithm was the key tool, serving as a starting point for panel discussion. The algorithm was revised after almost every panel meeting. KEY METHODS AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES: Early decisions included how best to (1) focus the guideline and literature review, (2) rate the strength of evidence underlying practice recommendations, and (3) determine the relationship between strength of evidence and strength of recommendation. In the absence of data, or when panelists did not share a common opinion, the panel attempted to achieve a consensus. An example of this process--when and how patients should be evaluated for possible coronary artery revascularization--is discussed at length. Unlike previous AHCPR guideline panels, this panel solicited opinions of national experts early and often during guideline development. This process helped the panelists arrive at conclusions on certain controversial issues.
CONCLUSIONS: The guideline development process was complex and painstaking. The panelists and project staff believe that frequent peer review helped produce a guideline that can be widely accepted across clinical and geographic lines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7842059     DOI: 10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30099-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Improv        ISSN: 1070-3241


  10 in total

1.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-19

2.  Developing valid guidelines: methodological and procedural issues from the North of England Evidence Based Guideline Development Project.

Authors:  M Eccles; Z Clapp; J Grimshaw; P C Adams; B Higgins; I Purves; I Russell
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1996-03

3.  Effective audit in general practice: a method for systematically developing audit protocols containing evidence-based review criteria.

Authors:  R C Fraser; K Khunti; R Baker; M Lakhani
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Development of the MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for mucositis: an overview of the methods.

Authors:  Vinisha Ranna; Karis Kin Fong Cheng; Daniel A Castillo; Lorraine Porcello; Anusha Vaddi; Rajesh V Lalla; Paolo Bossi; Sharon Elad
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Can data-driven benchmarks be used to set the goals of healthy people 2010?

Authors:  J Allison; C I Kiefe; N W Weissman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study.

Authors:  R Grol; J Dalhuijsen; S Thomas; C Veld; G Rutten; H Mokkink
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-09-26

7.  Outcomes research in the development and evaluation of practice guidelines.

Authors:  Louise Pilote; Ira B Tager
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-03-25       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  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

Review 9.  The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Christiane Muth; Jochen Gensichen; Martin Beyer; Allen Hutchinson; Ferdinand M Gerlach
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 10.  Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ulrich Siering; Michaela Eikermann; Elke Hausner; Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Edmund A Neugebauer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.