Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis

作者
Liang Yao,Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed,Gordon Guyatt,Peijing Yan,Hui Xu,Qi Wang,Kehu Yang,Jinhui Tian,Benjamin Djulbegoviĉ
出处
期刊:BMJ [BMJ]
卷期号:: e066045-e066045 被引量:18
标识
DOI:10.1136/bmj-2021-066045
摘要

To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines.Empirical analysis.Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021.Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations.Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness).The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach.Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
大幅提高文件上传限制,最高150M (2024-4-1)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
star完成签到,获得积分20
刚刚
1秒前
荒野女巫发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
linxiangFYYY完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
宝川完成签到,获得积分20
4秒前
领导范儿应助骨小梁采纳,获得10
6秒前
6秒前
一一应助star采纳,获得20
7秒前
7秒前
Aloha完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
hai完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
哈哈完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
huahua完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
Yippee完成签到 ,获得积分10
12秒前
搞快点完成签到 ,获得积分10
12秒前
荒野女巫完成签到,获得积分20
13秒前
亦玉完成签到,获得积分10
14秒前
yuancw完成签到 ,获得积分10
14秒前
curtisness应助辛勤万声采纳,获得10
17秒前
huahua发布了新的文献求助10
17秒前
zcy完成签到 ,获得积分10
18秒前
米兰达完成签到 ,获得积分10
20秒前
Kamal完成签到,获得积分10
20秒前
hexun发布了新的文献求助10
21秒前
不配.应助早日毕业采纳,获得20
22秒前
四斤瓜完成签到 ,获得积分10
23秒前
风中小刺猬完成签到,获得积分10
23秒前
碳土不凡完成签到 ,获得积分10
24秒前
在水一方应助huahua采纳,获得10
25秒前
MJX发布了新的文献求助10
25秒前
Mipe完成签到,获得积分10
26秒前
冰红茶发布了新的文献求助10
27秒前
chen完成签到,获得积分10
27秒前
28秒前
易槐完成签到,获得积分10
30秒前
dddd完成签到,获得积分10
32秒前
温婉的香水完成签到 ,获得积分10
32秒前
大酋长完成签到,获得积分10
33秒前
33秒前
高兴的曼卉关注了科研通微信公众号
33秒前
高分求助中
Sustainability in Tides Chemistry 2800
The Young builders of New china : the visit of the delegation of the WFDY to the Chinese People's Republic 1000
Rechtsphilosophie 1000
Bayesian Models of Cognition:Reverse Engineering the Mind 888
Handbook of Qualitative Cross-Cultural Research Methods 600
Very-high-order BVD Schemes Using β-variable THINC Method 568
Chen Hansheng: China’s Last Romantic Revolutionary 500
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 医学 生物 材料科学 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 基因 遗传学 催化作用 物理化学 免疫学 量子力学 细胞生物学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3137238
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 2788358
关于积分的说明 7785777
捐赠科研通 2444399
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1299897
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 625650
版权声明 601023