A few weeks ago we posted a paper on the use of Cochrane systematic reviews in guideline development, which found that 'To the best of our knowledge, no guideline development group has investigated how Cochrane reviews have informed specific critical and important outcomes of interest in guidelines.' I suggested this is 'an indictment of research on guideline development. The paper also raises the question of what we know about the use of systematic reviews in clinical guideline development in low- and middle-income countries. Can anyone on HIFA point us to research on this?'
https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/usefulness-cochrane-reviews-clinical-gu...
Here is a second paper on clinical practice guidelines, with a different but related perspective:
CITATION: Injury. 2022 Feb 1:S0020-1383(22)00077-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.01.047. Online ahead of print.
Clinical practice guidelines: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Guerra-Farfan E et al.
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.01.047 PMID: 35135686
SUMMARY
Clinical practices guidelines (CPGs) play a fundamental role in improving healthcare and patients' outcomes by helping clinicians make the best evidence-based decisions for their patients in a time-efficient manner. By following the available methods and criteria to create trustworthy CPGs, panel members can develop high-quality guidelines. However, despite the improvements over the years, CPGs are still subjected to biases and limitations, with conflicts of interest being the ugliest problem GCPs must face. In this review, we discuss the main characteristics of clinical practice guidelines, their pros and cons, and the future challenges they need to overcome.
Neil Pakenham-Walsh, HIFA Coordinator, neil@hifa.org www.hifa.org
