Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2006

Open Access 01-12-2006 | Review

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines

Authors: Andrew D Oxman, Holger J Schünemann, Atle Fretheim

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 14th of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.

Objectives

We reviewed the literature on reporting guidelines and recommendations.

Methods

We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments.

Key questions and answers

There is little empirical evidence that addresses these questions. Our answers are based on logical arguments and standards put forward by other groups.
What standard types of recommendations or reports should WHO use?
  • WHO should develop standard formats for reporting recommendations to facilitate recognition and use by decision makers for whom the recommendations are intended, and to ensure that all the information needed to judge the quality of a guideline, determine its applicability and, if needed, adapt it, is reported.
  • WHO should develop standard formats for full systematically developed guidelines that are sponsored by WHO, rapid assessments, and guidelines that are endorsed by WHO.
  • All three formats should include the same information as full guidelines, indicating explicitly what the group preparing the guideline did not do, as well as the methods that were used.
  • These formats should be used across clinical, public health and health systems recommendations.
How should recommendations be formulated and reported?
  • Reports should be structured, using headings that correspond to those suggested by the Conference on Guideline Standardization or similar headings.
  • The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations should be reported explicitly using a standard approach.
  • The way in which recommendations are formulated should be adapted to the specific characteristics of a specific guideline.
  • Urgent attention should be given to developing a template that provides decision makers with the relevant global evidence that is needed to inform a decision and offers practical methods for incorporating the context specific evidence and judgements that are needed.
Literature
1.
Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy: Guidelines for WHO Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2003 (EIP/GPE/EQC/2003.1)
2.
Panisett U: A review of WHO recommendations published in 2005.
3.
Guyatt G, Yayward R, Richardson WS, Green L, Wilson M, Sinclair J: Moving from evidence to action. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. Edited by: Guyatt G, Rennie D. 2002, Chicago: AMA Press, 175-99.
4.
Institute of Medicine: Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use. 1992, Washington, DC: National Academy Pr
5.
Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J: Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 1999, 281: 1900-5. 10.1001/jama.281.20.1900.CrossRefPubMed
6.
The AGREE Collaboration: Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003, 12: 18-23. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.18.CrossRef
7.
Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM, Slutsky J, Grimshaw J, Deshpande AM: Standardized Reporting of Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med. 2003, 139: 493-8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A: Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet. 2000, 355: 103-6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)02171-6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
10.
Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 15. Disseminating and implementing guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
11.
Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ: A review of WHO documents that guide the development, dissemination and implementation of recommendations by WHO.
12.
Moynihan R, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Paulsen E: Evidence-Informed Health Policy: Using Research to Make Health Systems Healthier. A review of organizations that support the use of research evidence in developing guidelines, technology assessments, and health policy, for the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research. 2006, Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
13.
14.
15.
Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A: Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
16.
17.
18.
19.
Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N: Developing clinical practice guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ. 2005, 331: 631-3. 10.1136/bmj.331.7517.631.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M: Developing an evidence-based guide to community preventive services-methods. Am J Prev Med. 2000, 18 (1S): 35-43. 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00119-1.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Stevens A, Colin-Jones D, Gabbay J: 'Quick and clean': authoritative health technology assessment for local health care contracting. Health Trends. 1995, 27: 37-42.PubMed
22.
Hailey D, COrabian P, Harstall C, Schneider W: The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000, 16: 651-6. 10.1017/S0266462300101205.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Perleth M, Luhmann D, Givis B, Droste S: Rapid Assessments – quick evaluation of medical technology. Gesundheitswesen. 2001, 63 (Suppl 1): S79-84. 10.1055/s-2001-12121.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technoloty Assessment: Rapid response services in health technology assessment: information from INAHTA members and additional information. 2004, Ottawa: CCOHTA
25.
Milne R, Clegg A, Stevens A: HTA responses and the classic HTA report. J Public Health Med. 2003, 25: 102-6. 10.1093/pubmed/fdg023.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Schünemann H, Fretheim A, Oxman AD: Adaptation, applicability, transferability.
27.
Graham ID, Harrison MB, Brouwers M, Davies BL, Dunn S: Facilitating the use of evidence in practice: evaluating and adapting clinical practice guidelines for local use by health care organizations. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2002, 31: 599-611. 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2002.tb00086.x.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Graham ID, Harrison MB, Lorimer K, Piercianowski T, Friedberg E, Buchanan M, Harris C: Adapting national and international leg ulcer practice guidelines for local use: the Ontario Leg Ulcer Community Care Protocol. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2005, 18: 307-18. 10.1097/00129334-200507000-00011.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Gyorkos TW, Tannenbaum TN, Abrahamowicz M, Oxman AD, Scott EAF, Millson ME: An approach to the development of practice guidelines for community health interventions. Can J Public Health. 1994, 85 (Suppl 1): S8-13.PubMed
31.
Lavis JN, Davies HTO, Oxman AD, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E: Towards systematic reviews that inform healthcare management and policymaking. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 35-48. 10.1258/1355819054308549.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
33.
Graham ID, Calder LA, Hebert PC, Carter AO, Tetroe JM: A comparison of clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000, 16: 1024-38. 10.1017/S0266462300103095.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Rubin HR, Haynes RB: More informative abstracts of articles describing clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1993, 118: 731-7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
36.
Shekelle PG, Kravitz RL, Beart J, Marger M, Wang M, Lee M: Are nonspecific practice guidelines potentially harmful? A randomized comparison of the effect of nonspecific versus specific guidelines on physician decision making. Health Serv Res. 2000, 34: 1429-48.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
38.
39.
40.
Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 7. Deciding what evidence to include. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
41.
Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD: Improving the Use of Research Evidence in Guideline Development: 13. Adaptation, applicability and transferability. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006
Metadata
Title
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines
Authors
Andrew D Oxman
Holger J Schünemann
Atle Fretheim
Publication date
01-12-2006
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2006
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-4-26

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2006 Go to the issue

Review

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement

Commentary

Global response to pandemic flu: more research needed on a critical front

Research

Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research

Review

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 6. Determining which outcomes are important

Editorial

Building health research systems to achieve better health

Review

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 3. Group composition and consultation process