International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on January 21, 2005
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2005 17(2):123-132; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzi011
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Predictors of high quality clinical practice guidelines: examples in oncology
1 Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, SOR, Paris, France, 2 Centre Léon Berard, GRESAC UMR-CNRS 5823, Lyon, France, 3 University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Centre for Quality of Care Research, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 4 Program in Evidence-based Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 5 McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 6 Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 7 St George’s Hospital Medical School, Department of Community Health Sciences, London, UK
Objective. Clinical practice guidelines are widely used as effective tools for improving the management of patients with cancer. However, there is increasing concern about variation in guideline quality. In this study we identified predictors for high-quality guidelines in oncology.
Design. The quality scores for 32 oncology guidelines from 13 countries were determined by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument.
Main measures. The contribution to the quality score of six characteristics of guidelines and three of guideline developing organizations was then assessed using analysis of variance and stepwise linear regression analysis.
Results. Some guideline and organizational characteristics were shown to be responsible for a large part of the variations in quality scores. The availability of background information was the strongest predictor of quality with an explained variance ranging from 17% (‘Applicability’) to 67% (‘Rigour of development’). High-quality guidelines were more often produced by government-supported organizations and/or within a structured, coordinated programme. The other characteristics (publication year, type of guideline, format, level of care, and scope) were not independent predictors of quality.
Conclusions. Guidelines should provide more explicit information about the context of their development and methods used in order to improve their quality and thus encourage their use in clinical practice.
Keywords: clinical practice guidelines, international, network, oncology quality assessment
Address reprint requests to Margaret C. Haugh or Beatrice Fervers, E-mail: m.haugh{at}lyon.fnclcc.fr or fervers{at}lyon.fnclcc.fr
Accepted for publication October 18, 2004.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Pentheroudakis, R. Stahel, H. Hansen, and N. Pavlidis Heterogeneity in cancer guidelines: should we eradicate or tolerate? Ann. Onc., July 28, 2008; (2008) mdn418v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Pavlidis, H. Hansen, and R. Stahel ESMO clinical recommendations: a practical guide for medical oncologists Ann. Onc., November 1, 2007; 18(11): 1759 - 1763. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Vigna-Taglianti, P. Vineis, A. Liberati, and F. Faggiano Quality of systematic reviews used in guidelines for oncology practice Ann. Onc., April 1, 2006; 17(4): 691 - 701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. S. Burgers Guideline Quality and Guideline Content: Are They Related? Clin. Chem., January 1, 2006; 52(1): 3 - 4. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|