Clinical practice guidelines to inform evidence-based clinical practice.

J Stuart Wolf, Heddy Hubbard, Martha M Faraday, John B Forrest
Author Information
  1. J Stuart Wolf: Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, TC 3875, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5330, USA. wolfs@umich.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the volume of medical research currently published, any one practitioner cannot independently review the literature to determine best evidence-based medical care. Additionally, non-specialists usually do not have the experience to know best practice for all of the frequent clinical circumstances for which there is no good evidence. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) help clinicians to address these problems because they are systematically created documents that summarize knowledge and provide guidance to assist in delivering high-quality medicine. They aim to improve health care by identifying evidence that supports the best clinical care and making clear which practices appear to be ineffective.
METHODS: Non-structured literature review.
RESULTS: CPGs combine evidence-based medicine (on topics for which evidence exists) with expert opinion (on topics for which there is no evidence). The optimal CPG applies structured and transparent judgments, from an unbiased and diverse panel which includes both clinical experts and non-physicians, to a systematic evidence review. It includes decisions in areas in which clinical data are both available and unavailable. The resulting guideline statements should be clearly linked to the quality of the available evidence and the target patient(s) should be clearly defined, so that the reader can assess strength and applicability of the statements to an individual patient.
CONCLUSIONS: The application of high-quality CPGs improves patient care, but all too often CPGs are not used to the greatest advantage because of inadequate dissemination and incorporation into practice. This article provides an overview of CPGs, focusing on their justification, creation, improvement, and use.

References

  1. J Urol. 2009 Feb;181(2):472-9 [PMID: 19084846]
  2. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 May;210(5):737-41, 741-3 [PMID: 20421041]
  3. Br J Gen Pract. 2007 Dec;57(545):971-8 [PMID: 18252073]
  4. Spine J. 2010 Jun;10(6):512-3 [PMID: 20494813]
  5. Healthc Q. 2009;12(4):64-71 [PMID: 20057231]
  6. J Pediatr. 2009 Jun;154(6):786-8 [PMID: 19446095]
  7. JAMA. 2010 Jun 23;303(24):2479-85 [PMID: 20571014]
  8. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008;36(3):290-301 [PMID: 18802175]
  9. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010 May 28;10:31 [PMID: 20509903]
  10. Chest. 2008 Jun;133(6 Suppl):132S-140S [PMID: 18574263]
  11. Endocr Pract. 2010 Mar-Apr;16(2):270-83 [PMID: 20350905]
  12. Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15(6):447-51 [PMID: 17130373]
  13. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Nov 15;59(11):1625-38 [PMID: 18975351]
  14. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 3;153(3):194-9 [PMID: 20679562]
  15. JAMA. 2009 Jan 28;301(4):429-31 [PMID: 19176446]
  16. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;14(11):1015-22 [PMID: 17967964]
  17. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009 Jun;17(6):335-6 [PMID: 19474442]
  18. Crit Care Med. 2008 Apr;36(4):1049-58 [PMID: 18379228]
  19. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jan;103(1):7-11 [PMID: 18184116]
  20. Mil Med. 2005 Mar;170(3):243-6 [PMID: 15828703]
  21. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Aug;53(8):1107-9 [PMID: 20628271]
  22. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Apr;30(2):172-8 [PMID: 19296417]
  23. JAMA. 2009 Feb 25;301(8):868-9 [PMID: 19244197]
  24. Arch Intern Med. 1992 May;152(5):946-52 [PMID: 1580720]
  25. JAMA. 2009 Feb 25;301(8):831-41 [PMID: 19244190]
  26. Lancet. 2009 Jul 25;374(9686):273-5 [PMID: 19394076]
  27. Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(4):228-32 [PMID: 19401623]
  28. CMAJ. 2010 Feb 9;182(2):E78-84 [PMID: 19969563]
  29. Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21 Suppl 5:v7-8 [PMID: 20555106]
  30. Chest. 2006 Jan;129(1):182-7 [PMID: 16424430]
  31. Ann Surg. 2009 May;249(5):744-9 [PMID: 19387336]
  32. N Z Med J. 2008 Jun 06;121(1275):19-25 [PMID: 18551147]
  33. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Jan;23(1):37-44 [PMID: 18030541]
  34. BJU Int. 2009 Aug;104(3):294-7 [PMID: 19614654]
  35. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):657-64 [PMID: 17683311]
  36. J Urol. 2008 Aug;180(2):451-9; discussion 460 [PMID: 18550100]

MeSH Term

Delivery of Health Care
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Information Dissemination
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
Review Literature as Topic
Urology

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0evidencepracticeclinicalCPGscarereviewbestevidence-basedpatientmedicalliteratureClinicalguidelineshigh-qualitymedicinetopicsincludesavailablestatementsclearlyBACKGROUND:volumeresearchcurrentlypublishedonepractitionerindependentlydetermineAdditionallynon-specialistsusuallyexperienceknowfrequentcircumstancesgoodhelpcliniciansaddressproblemssystematicallycreateddocumentssummarizeknowledgeprovideguidanceassistdeliveringaimimprovehealthidentifyingsupportsmakingclearpracticesappearineffectiveMETHODS:Non-structuredRESULTS:combineexistsexpertopinionoptimalCPGappliesstructuredtransparentjudgmentsunbiaseddiversepanelexpertsnon-physicianssystematicdecisionsareasdataunavailableresultingguidelinelinkedqualitytargetsdefinedreadercanassessstrengthapplicabilityindividualCONCLUSIONS:applicationimprovesoftenusedgreatestadvantageinadequatedisseminationincorporationarticleprovidesoverviewfocusingjustificationcreationimprovementuseinform

Similar Articles

Cited By