Failure of clinical practice guidelines to meet institute of medicine standards: Two more decades of little, if any, progress.

Justin Kung, Ram R Miller, Philip A Mackowiak
{"title":"Failure of clinical practice guidelines to meet institute of medicine standards: Two more decades of little, if any, progress.","authors":"Justin Kung, Ram R Miller, Philip A Mackowiak","doi":"10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nIn March 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a new set of standards for clinical practice guidelines intended to enhance the quality of guidelines being produced. To our knowledge, no systematic review of adherence to such standards has been undertaken since one published over a decade ago.\n\n\nMETHODS\nTwo reviewers independently screened 130 guidelines selected at random from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) website for compliance with 18 of 25 IOM standards.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe overall median number (percentage) of IOM standards satisfied (out of 18) was 8 (44.4%), with an interquartile range of 6.5 (36.1%) to 9.5 (52.8%). Fewer than half of the guidelines surveyed met more than 50% of the IOM standards. Barely a third of the guidelines produced by subspecialty societies satisfied more than 50% of the IOM standards surveyed. Information on conflicts of interest (COIs) was given in fewer than half of the guidelines surveyed. Of those guidelines including such information, COIs were present in over two-thirds of committee chairpersons (71.4%) and 90.5% of co-chairpersons. Except for US government agency–produced guidelines, criteria used to select committee members and the selection process were rarely described. Committees developing guidelines rarely included an information scientist or a patient or patient representative. Non-English literature, unpublished data, and/or abstracts were rarely considered in developing guidelines; differences of opinion among committee members generally were not aired in guidelines; and benefits of recommendations were enumerated more often than potential harms. Guidelines published from 2006 through 2011 varied little with regard to average number of IOM standards satisfied.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nAnalysis of a random sample of clinical practice guidelines archived on the NGC website as of June 2011 demonstrated poor compliance with IOM standards, with little if any improvement over the past 2 decades.","PeriodicalId":8290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of internal medicine","volume":"172 21","pages":"1628-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.56","citationCount":"278","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of internal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 278

Abstract

BACKGROUND In March 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a new set of standards for clinical practice guidelines intended to enhance the quality of guidelines being produced. To our knowledge, no systematic review of adherence to such standards has been undertaken since one published over a decade ago. METHODS Two reviewers independently screened 130 guidelines selected at random from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) website for compliance with 18 of 25 IOM standards. RESULTS The overall median number (percentage) of IOM standards satisfied (out of 18) was 8 (44.4%), with an interquartile range of 6.5 (36.1%) to 9.5 (52.8%). Fewer than half of the guidelines surveyed met more than 50% of the IOM standards. Barely a third of the guidelines produced by subspecialty societies satisfied more than 50% of the IOM standards surveyed. Information on conflicts of interest (COIs) was given in fewer than half of the guidelines surveyed. Of those guidelines including such information, COIs were present in over two-thirds of committee chairpersons (71.4%) and 90.5% of co-chairpersons. Except for US government agency–produced guidelines, criteria used to select committee members and the selection process were rarely described. Committees developing guidelines rarely included an information scientist or a patient or patient representative. Non-English literature, unpublished data, and/or abstracts were rarely considered in developing guidelines; differences of opinion among committee members generally were not aired in guidelines; and benefits of recommendations were enumerated more often than potential harms. Guidelines published from 2006 through 2011 varied little with regard to average number of IOM standards satisfied. CONCLUSION Analysis of a random sample of clinical practice guidelines archived on the NGC website as of June 2011 demonstrated poor compliance with IOM standards, with little if any improvement over the past 2 decades.
临床实践指南未能达到医学研究所的标准:二十年来几乎没有进展,如果有的话。
背景:2011年3月,医学研究所(IOM)发布了一套新的临床实践指南标准,旨在提高正在制定的指南的质量。据我们所知,自十多年前发布了一项标准以来,还没有对这些标准的遵守情况进行过系统的审查。方法:两名审稿人独立筛选了从国家指南信息中心(NGC)网站随机选择的130份指南,以符合25项IOM标准中的18项。结果:总体满意IOM标准的中位数(百分比)为8(44.4%),四分位数区间为6.5(36.1%)~ 9.5(52.8%)。在接受调查的指南中,只有不到一半的指南达到了国际医学组织标准的50%以上。亚专业协会制定的指南中,只有不到三分之一满足了超过50%的IOM调查标准。在接受调查的准则中,只有不到一半提供了有关利益冲突的信息。在这些包含此类信息的指导方针中,超过三分之二的委员会主席(71.4%)和90.5%的联合主席中都有coi。除了美国政府机构制定的指导方针外,很少对遴选委员会成员的标准和遴选过程进行描述。制定指南的委员会很少包括信息科学家或患者或患者代表。在制定指南时很少考虑非英语文献、未发表的数据和/或摘要;委员会成员之间的意见分歧一般不会在指导方针中公布;推荐的好处比潜在的危害更常被列举出来。2006年至2011年发布的指南在满足国际移民组织标准的平均数量方面变化不大。结论:对2011年6月存档的临床实践指南随机样本的分析表明,对IOM标准的遵守程度很差,在过去的20年里几乎没有任何改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of internal medicine
Archives of internal medicine 医学-医学:内科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信