Skip Navigation



International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access published online on September 7, 2006
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzl040
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/5/365    most recent
mzl040v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verkerk, K.
Right arrow Articles by Burgers, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Verkerk, K.
Right arrow Articles by Burgers, J. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved
Accepted August 5, 2006

Article

Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development

Karin Verkerk 1 *, Haske Van Veenendaal 2, Johan L. Severens 3, Erik J. M. Hendriks 4, and Jako S. Burgers 2

1 Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO), Utrecht; Department of Health, University of Maastricht, Maastricht; Hogeschool Rotterdam, Department of Physiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2 Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO), Utrecht, The Netherlands
3 Department of Health, University of Maastricht, Maastricht; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
4 Department of Research, Dutch Institute of Allied Health Care, Amersfoort; Department of Epidemiology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Karin Verkerk, E-mail: k.verkerk{at}hro.nl


  Abstract

Background. Clinical practice guidelines should be based on the best available evidence. However, this evidence is often incomplete, controversial, or lacking. Other considerations beyond the evidence are therefore needed to be able to formulate specific and applicable recommendations for clinical practice.

Objective. The aim of this study is to obtain consensus among experts about a set of domains and items covering the most relevant ‘other considerations’ to formulate recommendations in evidence-based guideline development.

Methods. An initial list of 10 domains and 49 items for a systematic and considered judgement of scientific evidence was generated from the literature. A panel of Dutch experts in guideline development tested this list using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently score the relevance of the items on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘very important’ to ‘not important’. The final list consisted of items that were included by at least 60% consensus.

Results. Twenty-eight experts participated in the first Delphi round and 21 of them in the second round. High scoring domains were ‘clinical relevance’, ‘safety’, and ‘availability of resources’. There was consensus about the relevance of 37 items. The domain ‘conflicts of interest by industry’ was excluded because of lack of consensus.

Conclusion. This is the first formal consensus approach towards structuring the considered judgement process in formulating recommendations in clinical guidelines. The final list of items can be used to facilitate the process of guideline development. The next step is to test the practical usefulness and applicability of this list in guideline development.

Keywords: clinical practice guideline, considered judgement, Delphi technique.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.