Adherence of published diabetes mellitus practice guidelines to methodologic standards of guideline development

Gabriel Sica, Paul Harker-Murray, Victor Manuel Montori, Steven A. Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There are multiple practice guidelines published pertaining to diabetes care. Experts have formulated methodologic standards of guideline formulation. The objective was to determine whether practice guidelines pertaining to diabetes and published in peerreviewed publications and the Internet adhered to established methodologic standards of guideline development. We identified all guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published between 1980 and 2000 using a computerized search of Medline, the Practice Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement Web site, and a global Internet search engine. We used a previously validated 25-item assessment tool to determine guideline adherence to methodologic standards in three categories: guideline development and format, identification and summary of evidence, and formulation of recommendations. We conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine the influence of guideline author, publishing medium, year of publication, and guideline length on adherence to methodologic standards of guideline development. We evaluated 43 guidelines: 33% published on the Internet, 66% in peer-reviewed journals; 51% published by organizations and 49% by individual experts. Of a maximum of 25 methodologic standards, the number of standards adhered by a guideline was 9 (range, 2 to 19). Mean proportion (SD) of guidelines that adhered to methodologic standards on guideline development and format was 48% (28); on identification and summary of evidence, 21% (22); and on the formulation of recommendations, 36% (27). Longer guidelines had greater adherence to methodologic standards (P < 0.0001). Guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published on the Internet and in peer-reviewed publications do not meet most methodologic standards of guideline development.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)819-828
Number of pages10
JournalEndocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2002

Fingerprint

Medical problems
Practice Guidelines
Diabetes Mellitus
Guidelines
Internet
Publications
Search engines
Regression analysis
Websites
Guideline Adherence
Search Engine
Computer systems
Regression Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Endocrinology
  • Biochemistry

Cite this

Adherence of published diabetes mellitus practice guidelines to methodologic standards of guideline development. / Sica, Gabriel; Harker-Murray, Paul; Montori, Victor Manuel; Smith, Steven A.

In: Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, Vol. 31, No. 3, 09.2002, p. 819-828.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{315561aa7e3f4f78bdac02849f19453e,
title = "Adherence of published diabetes mellitus practice guidelines to methodologic standards of guideline development",
abstract = "There are multiple practice guidelines published pertaining to diabetes care. Experts have formulated methodologic standards of guideline formulation. The objective was to determine whether practice guidelines pertaining to diabetes and published in peerreviewed publications and the Internet adhered to established methodologic standards of guideline development. We identified all guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published between 1980 and 2000 using a computerized search of Medline, the Practice Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement Web site, and a global Internet search engine. We used a previously validated 25-item assessment tool to determine guideline adherence to methodologic standards in three categories: guideline development and format, identification and summary of evidence, and formulation of recommendations. We conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine the influence of guideline author, publishing medium, year of publication, and guideline length on adherence to methodologic standards of guideline development. We evaluated 43 guidelines: 33{\%} published on the Internet, 66{\%} in peer-reviewed journals; 51{\%} published by organizations and 49{\%} by individual experts. Of a maximum of 25 methodologic standards, the number of standards adhered by a guideline was 9 (range, 2 to 19). Mean proportion (SD) of guidelines that adhered to methodologic standards on guideline development and format was 48{\%} (28); on identification and summary of evidence, 21{\%} (22); and on the formulation of recommendations, 36{\%} (27). Longer guidelines had greater adherence to methodologic standards (P < 0.0001). Guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published on the Internet and in peer-reviewed publications do not meet most methodologic standards of guideline development.",
author = "Gabriel Sica and Paul Harker-Murray and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Smith, {Steven A.}",
year = "2002",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/S0889-8529(02)00016-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "819--828",
journal = "Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America",
issn = "0889-8529",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adherence of published diabetes mellitus practice guidelines to methodologic standards of guideline development

AU - Sica, Gabriel

AU - Harker-Murray, Paul

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Smith, Steven A.

PY - 2002/9

Y1 - 2002/9

N2 - There are multiple practice guidelines published pertaining to diabetes care. Experts have formulated methodologic standards of guideline formulation. The objective was to determine whether practice guidelines pertaining to diabetes and published in peerreviewed publications and the Internet adhered to established methodologic standards of guideline development. We identified all guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published between 1980 and 2000 using a computerized search of Medline, the Practice Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement Web site, and a global Internet search engine. We used a previously validated 25-item assessment tool to determine guideline adherence to methodologic standards in three categories: guideline development and format, identification and summary of evidence, and formulation of recommendations. We conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine the influence of guideline author, publishing medium, year of publication, and guideline length on adherence to methodologic standards of guideline development. We evaluated 43 guidelines: 33% published on the Internet, 66% in peer-reviewed journals; 51% published by organizations and 49% by individual experts. Of a maximum of 25 methodologic standards, the number of standards adhered by a guideline was 9 (range, 2 to 19). Mean proportion (SD) of guidelines that adhered to methodologic standards on guideline development and format was 48% (28); on identification and summary of evidence, 21% (22); and on the formulation of recommendations, 36% (27). Longer guidelines had greater adherence to methodologic standards (P < 0.0001). Guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published on the Internet and in peer-reviewed publications do not meet most methodologic standards of guideline development.

AB - There are multiple practice guidelines published pertaining to diabetes care. Experts have formulated methodologic standards of guideline formulation. The objective was to determine whether practice guidelines pertaining to diabetes and published in peerreviewed publications and the Internet adhered to established methodologic standards of guideline development. We identified all guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published between 1980 and 2000 using a computerized search of Medline, the Practice Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement Web site, and a global Internet search engine. We used a previously validated 25-item assessment tool to determine guideline adherence to methodologic standards in three categories: guideline development and format, identification and summary of evidence, and formulation of recommendations. We conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine the influence of guideline author, publishing medium, year of publication, and guideline length on adherence to methodologic standards of guideline development. We evaluated 43 guidelines: 33% published on the Internet, 66% in peer-reviewed journals; 51% published by organizations and 49% by individual experts. Of a maximum of 25 methodologic standards, the number of standards adhered by a guideline was 9 (range, 2 to 19). Mean proportion (SD) of guidelines that adhered to methodologic standards on guideline development and format was 48% (28); on identification and summary of evidence, 21% (22); and on the formulation of recommendations, 36% (27). Longer guidelines had greater adherence to methodologic standards (P < 0.0001). Guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published on the Internet and in peer-reviewed publications do not meet most methodologic standards of guideline development.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036714287&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036714287&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0889-8529(02)00016-6

DO - 10.1016/S0889-8529(02)00016-6

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 819

EP - 828

JO - Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America

JF - Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America

SN - 0889-8529

IS - 3

ER -