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
zy完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
Ashore完成签到 ,获得积分10
7秒前
stiger完成签到,获得积分0
7秒前
kanong完成签到,获得积分0
9秒前
刻苦的新烟完成签到 ,获得积分0
10秒前
Hunter完成签到,获得积分10
12秒前
崔京成完成签到 ,获得积分10
12秒前
jason完成签到 ,获得积分10
16秒前
CHEN完成签到 ,获得积分10
17秒前
微卫星不稳定完成签到 ,获得积分0
18秒前
大雪完成签到 ,获得积分10
24秒前
ww完成签到 ,获得积分10
33秒前
无辜的猎豹完成签到 ,获得积分10
40秒前
真人完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
取名叫做利完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
amen完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
泥嚎完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
梦游菌完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
直率若烟完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
平常以云完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
香蕉新儿完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
SCI的芷蝶完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
ala完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
七月星河完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
fxx完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
xue112完成签到 ,获得积分0
1分钟前
LingMg完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
海阔天空完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
CY完成签到,获得积分10
2分钟前
末小皮发布了新的文献求助10
2分钟前
微笑的忆枫完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
可夫司机完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
年轻千愁完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
末小皮完成签到,获得积分10
2分钟前
2分钟前
wuyuan完成签到,获得积分10
2分钟前
等待小丸子完成签到,获得积分10
2分钟前
2分钟前
陈鹿华完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
2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 5881157
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 6583869
关于积分的说明 15690877
捐赠科研通 5001215
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2694632
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1636939
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1593780