Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers

Teryl K. Nuckols, Yee Wei Lim, Barbara O. Wynn, Soeren Mattke, Catherine H. MacLean, Philip I Harber, Robert H. Brook, Peggy Wallace, Rena H. Garland, Steven Asch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rigorous guideline development methods are designed to produce recommendations that are relevant to common clinical situations and consistent with evidence and expert understanding, thereby promoting guidelines' acceptability to providers. No studies have examined whether this technical quality consistently leads to acceptability. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical acceptability of guidelines having excellent technical quality. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: We selected guidelines covering several musculoskeletal disorders and meeting 5 basic technical quality criteria, then used the widely accepted AGREE Instrument to evaluate technical quality. Adapting an established modified Delphi method, we assembled a multidisciplinary panel of providers recommended by their specialty societies as leaders in the field. Panelists rated acceptability, including "perceived comprehensiveness" (perceived relevance to common clinical situations) and "perceived validity" (consistency with their understanding of existing evidence and opinions), for ten common condition/therapy pairs pertaining to Surgery, physical therapy, and chiropractic manipulation for lumbar spine, shoulder, and carpal tunnel disorders. RESULTS: Five guidelines met selection criteria. Their AGREE scores were generally high indicating excellent technical quality. However, panelists found 4 guidelines to be only moderately comprehensive and valid, and a fifth guideline to be invalid overall. Of the topics covered by each guideline, panelists rated 50% to 69% as "comprehensive" and 6% to 50% as "valid". CONCLUSION: Despite very rigorous development methods compared with guidelines assessed in prior studies, experts felt that these guidelines omitted common clinical situations and contained much content of uncertain validity. Guideline acceptability should be independently and formally evaluated before dissemination.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)37-44
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume23
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Chiropractic Manipulation
Wrist
Patient Selection
Spine
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Attitude of health personnel
  • Evaluation
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Health care
  • Practice guidelines
  • Quality assurance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers. / Nuckols, Teryl K.; Lim, Yee Wei; Wynn, Barbara O.; Mattke, Soeren; MacLean, Catherine H.; Harber, Philip I; Brook, Robert H.; Wallace, Peggy; Garland, Rena H.; Asch, Steven.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 1, 01.2008, p. 37-44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nuckols, TK, Lim, YW, Wynn, BO, Mattke, S, MacLean, CH, Harber, PI, Brook, RH, Wallace, P, Garland, RH & Asch, S 2008, 'Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers', Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0440-9
Nuckols, Teryl K. ; Lim, Yee Wei ; Wynn, Barbara O. ; Mattke, Soeren ; MacLean, Catherine H. ; Harber, Philip I ; Brook, Robert H. ; Wallace, Peggy ; Garland, Rena H. ; Asch, Steven. / Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 23, No. 1. pp. 37-44.
@article{5afffbe80e544b4f8006f9ce7763b366,
title = "Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Rigorous guideline development methods are designed to produce recommendations that are relevant to common clinical situations and consistent with evidence and expert understanding, thereby promoting guidelines' acceptability to providers. No studies have examined whether this technical quality consistently leads to acceptability. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical acceptability of guidelines having excellent technical quality. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: We selected guidelines covering several musculoskeletal disorders and meeting 5 basic technical quality criteria, then used the widely accepted AGREE Instrument to evaluate technical quality. Adapting an established modified Delphi method, we assembled a multidisciplinary panel of providers recommended by their specialty societies as leaders in the field. Panelists rated acceptability, including {"}perceived comprehensiveness{"} (perceived relevance to common clinical situations) and {"}perceived validity{"} (consistency with their understanding of existing evidence and opinions), for ten common condition/therapy pairs pertaining to Surgery, physical therapy, and chiropractic manipulation for lumbar spine, shoulder, and carpal tunnel disorders. RESULTS: Five guidelines met selection criteria. Their AGREE scores were generally high indicating excellent technical quality. However, panelists found 4 guidelines to be only moderately comprehensive and valid, and a fifth guideline to be invalid overall. Of the topics covered by each guideline, panelists rated 50{\%} to 69{\%} as {"}comprehensive{"} and 6{\%} to 50{\%} as {"}valid{"}. CONCLUSION: Despite very rigorous development methods compared with guidelines assessed in prior studies, experts felt that these guidelines omitted common clinical situations and contained much content of uncertain validity. Guideline acceptability should be independently and formally evaluated before dissemination.",
keywords = "Attitude of health personnel, Evaluation, Evidence-based medicine, Health care, Practice guidelines, Quality assurance",
author = "Nuckols, {Teryl K.} and Lim, {Yee Wei} and Wynn, {Barbara O.} and Soeren Mattke and MacLean, {Catherine H.} and Harber, {Philip I} and Brook, {Robert H.} and Peggy Wallace and Garland, {Rena H.} and Steven Asch",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-007-0440-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "37--44",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers

AU - Nuckols, Teryl K.

AU - Lim, Yee Wei

AU - Wynn, Barbara O.

AU - Mattke, Soeren

AU - MacLean, Catherine H.

AU - Harber, Philip I

AU - Brook, Robert H.

AU - Wallace, Peggy

AU - Garland, Rena H.

AU - Asch, Steven

PY - 2008/1

Y1 - 2008/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Rigorous guideline development methods are designed to produce recommendations that are relevant to common clinical situations and consistent with evidence and expert understanding, thereby promoting guidelines' acceptability to providers. No studies have examined whether this technical quality consistently leads to acceptability. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical acceptability of guidelines having excellent technical quality. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: We selected guidelines covering several musculoskeletal disorders and meeting 5 basic technical quality criteria, then used the widely accepted AGREE Instrument to evaluate technical quality. Adapting an established modified Delphi method, we assembled a multidisciplinary panel of providers recommended by their specialty societies as leaders in the field. Panelists rated acceptability, including "perceived comprehensiveness" (perceived relevance to common clinical situations) and "perceived validity" (consistency with their understanding of existing evidence and opinions), for ten common condition/therapy pairs pertaining to Surgery, physical therapy, and chiropractic manipulation for lumbar spine, shoulder, and carpal tunnel disorders. RESULTS: Five guidelines met selection criteria. Their AGREE scores were generally high indicating excellent technical quality. However, panelists found 4 guidelines to be only moderately comprehensive and valid, and a fifth guideline to be invalid overall. Of the topics covered by each guideline, panelists rated 50% to 69% as "comprehensive" and 6% to 50% as "valid". CONCLUSION: Despite very rigorous development methods compared with guidelines assessed in prior studies, experts felt that these guidelines omitted common clinical situations and contained much content of uncertain validity. Guideline acceptability should be independently and formally evaluated before dissemination.

AB - BACKGROUND: Rigorous guideline development methods are designed to produce recommendations that are relevant to common clinical situations and consistent with evidence and expert understanding, thereby promoting guidelines' acceptability to providers. No studies have examined whether this technical quality consistently leads to acceptability. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical acceptability of guidelines having excellent technical quality. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: We selected guidelines covering several musculoskeletal disorders and meeting 5 basic technical quality criteria, then used the widely accepted AGREE Instrument to evaluate technical quality. Adapting an established modified Delphi method, we assembled a multidisciplinary panel of providers recommended by their specialty societies as leaders in the field. Panelists rated acceptability, including "perceived comprehensiveness" (perceived relevance to common clinical situations) and "perceived validity" (consistency with their understanding of existing evidence and opinions), for ten common condition/therapy pairs pertaining to Surgery, physical therapy, and chiropractic manipulation for lumbar spine, shoulder, and carpal tunnel disorders. RESULTS: Five guidelines met selection criteria. Their AGREE scores were generally high indicating excellent technical quality. However, panelists found 4 guidelines to be only moderately comprehensive and valid, and a fifth guideline to be invalid overall. Of the topics covered by each guideline, panelists rated 50% to 69% as "comprehensive" and 6% to 50% as "valid". CONCLUSION: Despite very rigorous development methods compared with guidelines assessed in prior studies, experts felt that these guidelines omitted common clinical situations and contained much content of uncertain validity. Guideline acceptability should be independently and formally evaluated before dissemination.

KW - Attitude of health personnel

KW - Evaluation

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - Health care

KW - Practice guidelines

KW - Quality assurance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=37749042769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=37749042769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-007-0440-9

DO - 10.1007/s11606-007-0440-9

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 37

EP - 44

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 1

ER -