亲爱的研友该休息了!由于当前在线用户较少,发布求助请尽量完整地填写文献信息,科研通机器人24小时在线,伴您度过漫漫科研夜!身体可是革命的本钱,早点休息,好梦!

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.

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI

祝大家在新的一年里科研腾飞
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
小橘子吃傻子完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
hanyuying发布了新的文献求助10
18秒前
59秒前
王誉霖完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
Yuki完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
英俊的铭应助杨惠子采纳,获得10
2分钟前
2分钟前
杨惠子发布了新的文献求助10
2分钟前
由道罡完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
颜林林完成签到,获得积分10
3分钟前
3分钟前
领导范儿应助勤恳的依珊采纳,获得10
3分钟前
4分钟前
4分钟前
4分钟前
4分钟前
俊逸随阴发布了新的文献求助10
4分钟前
田様应助pluvia采纳,获得10
4分钟前
勤恳的依珊完成签到,获得积分10
4分钟前
ding应助俊逸随阴采纳,获得10
4分钟前
4分钟前
pluvia发布了新的文献求助10
4分钟前
nbing发布了新的文献求助10
4分钟前
繁棠完成签到 ,获得积分10
4分钟前
慕青应助不知道采纳,获得10
4分钟前
林莹完成签到,获得积分20
4分钟前
善学以致用应助林莹采纳,获得10
4分钟前
4分钟前
5分钟前
饼饼发布了新的文献求助10
5分钟前
饼饼完成签到,获得积分10
5分钟前
刘唯完成签到 ,获得积分10
5分钟前
5分钟前
lqhccww发布了新的文献求助10
5分钟前
6分钟前
萝卜猪发布了新的文献求助10
6分钟前
香蕉觅云应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
6分钟前
6分钟前
7777777发布了新的文献求助10
6分钟前
Qqqqq发布了新的文献求助10
6分钟前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Les Mantodea de guyane 2500
Signals, Systems, and Signal Processing 510
Discrete-Time Signals and Systems 510
《The Emergency Nursing High-Yield Guide》 (或简称为 Emergency Nursing High-Yield Essentials) 500
The Dance of Butch/Femme: The Complementarity and Autonomy of Lesbian Gender Identity 500
Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 350
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 生物 医学 工程类 计算机科学 有机化学 物理 生物化学 纳米技术 复合材料 内科学 化学工程 人工智能 催化作用 遗传学 数学 基因 量子力学 物理化学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 5880681
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 6576741
关于积分的说明 15690248
捐赠科研通 5000555
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2694364
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1636276
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1593528