Abstract
Objective
To establish what GIN guideline community members see as the desirable features of
a guidelines library and registry of guidelines in development
Study design and setting
An explorative mixed-methods study was undertaken, including scoping activity and
semi-structured interviews with guideline developers and endorsers from nine member
organizations of the Guidelines International Network.
Results
A small number of desirable features of a guideline library were identified: comprehensiveness;
single source of information to avoid searching multiple sites; inclusion of related
materials; being up to date; searchability and ease of use. No existing library of
guidelines was considered to have all of these features. A number of issues arose
out of the desire to have a comprehensive library of guidelines, including inclusion
of ‘high quality guidelines’ and limiting the scope to include only national guidelines.
For registries of guidelines in development, the data set should be limited to avoid
placing undue burden on those entering information.
Conclusion
Our findings identify ongoing issues for the guideline community, including the tension
between comprehensiveness and ease of use, which can result in limited uptake, reporting
of guideline quality and the need for clarity on the purpose of any library or registry.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on.Lancet. 2017; 390: 415-423https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6
- Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines.BMJ. 1999; 318: 527-530https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527
- Current and future relevance of guidelines.Heart. 2002; 87: 497-500https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.87.6.497
- A vision statement on guideline development for respiratory disease: the example of COPD.Lancet. 2009; 373: 774-779https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61347-1
- Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations.J Clinl Epidemiol. 2017; 91: 47-53https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009
- Future of evidence ecosystem series: evidence ecosystems and learning health systems: why bother?.J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 123: 166-170https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.008
- Guidelines international network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines.Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156: 525-531https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009
- Disappearance of the national guideline clearinghouse: a huge loss for evidence-based health care.Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 648-649https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2216
- Whatever happened to qualitative description?.Research in Nursing and Health. 2000; 23: 334-340
- Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust.DC National Academies, Washington2011
- Clinical practice guidelines registry: toward reducing duplication, improving collaboration, and increasing transparency.Ann Intern Med. 2021; https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-7884
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 04, 2021
Accepted:
December 1,
2021
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: Sara Twaddle and Elaine Harrow are employed by Guidelines International Network.
Duncan Service, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Ina Kopp and Zachary Munn are Trustees of Guidelines International Network.
Ina Kopp is employed by AWMF, a non-profit organisation that affiliates 179 Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and runs a quality-assured guideline registry.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
