Advertisement

Guidelines: Options and Limit

  • Manuel López-Cano
  • Josep M. García-Alamino
Chapter

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been created with the intention of facilitating decision-making. They offer explicit and concise recommendations for diagnosis, management (e.g., surgical treatments), and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. All information included in CPGs is the result of a systematic review of published studies, which are collected according to strict selection criteria. The process of developing guidelines involves a series of well-defined consecutive phases to assess the quality of evidence, according to which final recommendations are build. In this chapter, we describe the main aspects involved in the development and implementation of CPGs with special emphasis on the GRADE system. All parties involved, clinicians, patients, policy makers, and payers should be aware that guidelines are intended for marking care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians (surgeons) do and what scientific evidence supports.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell RH Jr. Why Johnny cannot operate. Surgery. 2009;146:533–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Francis DMA. Surgical decision making. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79:886–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Dombal FT. Surgical decision making. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grupo de Variaciones en la Práctica Médica de la Red temática de Investigación en Resultados y Servicios de Salud (Grupo VPM-IRYSS). Variaciones en Intervenciones de Cirugía General en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. 2005;1:59. http://www.atlasvpm.org/documents/10157/22351/Atlasnumero2_%286.72MB%29.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
  5. 5.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Program. https://consensus.nih.gov. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
  7. 7.
    Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lázaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method User’s manual. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Institutes of Health. Office of Disease Prevention. Strategic plan. https://prevention.nih.gov/strategic-plan. Accessed 7 Jan 2010.
  9. 9.
    Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a New Agency. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 1990. p. 58.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woolf SH. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:946–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Briones E, Vidal S, Navarro A, Marín I. Conflict of interest and Spanish clinical guidelines. Med Clin (Barc). 2006;127:634–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:593–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lara M, Goodman C, editors. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woolf SH. An organized analytic framework for practice guideline development: using the analytic logic as a guide for reviewing evidence, developing recommendations, and explaining the rationale. In: McCormick KA, Moore SR, Siegel RA, editors. Methodology perspectives. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994. p. 105–13.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape LL, Bernstein SJ, Hilborne LH, Parker L, et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care. 1996;34:512–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coulter I, Adams A, Shekelle P. Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels—a comparison of a multi and single disciplinary panel. Health Serv Res. 1995;30:577–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flemming K. Critical appraisal. 2. Searchable questions. NT Learn Curve. 1999;3:6–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90:837–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res. 2002;15:197–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shekelle P. Assessing the predictive validity of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method criteria for performing carotid endarterectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:707–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pacini D, Murana G, Leone A, Di Marco L, Pantaleo A. The value and limitations of guidelines, expert consensus, and registries on the management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;49:413–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:38.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alonso-Coello P, Rigau D, Sanabria AJ, Plaza V, Miravitlles M, Martinez L. Quality and strength: the GRADE system for formulating recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Arch Bronconeumol. 2013;49:261–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neumann I, Pantoja T, Peñaloza B, Cifuentes L, Rada G. The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Rev Med Chile. 2014;142:630–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:395–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 3: rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines 4: rating the quality of evidence—risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1303–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 5: rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1277–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    GRADEPro GDT. https://gradepro.org. Accessed 4 Mar 2017.
  38. 38.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. GRADE Working Group. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1049–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Field MJ, Lohr KN, Institute of Medicine, Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    American Medical Association, Office of Quality Assurance. Attributes to guide the development of practice parameters. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1990.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    AGREE. Advancing the science of practice guidelines. http://www.agreetrust.org. Accessed 4 Mar 2017.
  42. 42.
    Feder G, Eccles M, Grol R, Griffiths C, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: using clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7185):728–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to action? Evidence-based health care in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Tetroe J. Implementing clinical guidelines: current evidence and future implications. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2004;24(Suppl 1):S31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Flores G, Lee M, Bauchner H, Kastner B. Pediatricians’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding clinical practice guidelines: a national survey. Pediatrics. 2000;105:496–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282:1458–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cinel I, Dellinger RP. Guidelines for severe infections: are they useful? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:483–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wensing M, Grol R. Determinants of effective change. In: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, editors. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in clinical practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2005. p. 94–108.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kedward J, Dakin L. A qualitative study of barriers to the use of statins and the implementation of coronary heart disease prevention in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53:684–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brand C, Landgren F, Hutchinson A, Jones C, Macgregor L, Campbell D. Clinical practice guidelines: barriers to durability after effective early implementation. Intern Med J. 2005;35:162–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Institute of Medicine (IOM). Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shapiro DW, Lasker RD, Bindman AB, Lee PR. Containing costs while improving quality of care: the role of profiling and practice guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health. 1993;14:219–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Slim K. Limits of evidence-based surgery. World J Surg. 2005;29:606–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kane RL. Creating practice guidelines: the dangers of over-reliance on expert judgment. J Law Med Ethics. 1995;23:62–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel López-Cano
    • 1
  • Josep M. García-Alamino
    • 2
  1. 1.Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive SurgeryUniversity Hospital Vall d´HebronBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.DPhil Programme in Evidence-Based HealthcareUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations