Abstract
Any evidence-based recommendation needs careful assessment of its methodological background as well as of its content trustworthiness, especially given that following it will not necessarily produce the intended clinical outcomes. There are no established instruments to evaluate guidelines for their content, while useful tools assessing the quality of methods followed are well recognised and adopted. We suggest a 'safety bundle' considering methodological aspects and content trustworthiness of guidelines, by adopting the GRADE method in a backward fashion. Sharing the critical analysis of the guidelines with patients, including any eventual uncertainty about them, is of key importance in order to avoid the possible adverse effects derived from following the wrong guidelines. Such critical approach is also helpful and beneficial in producing better care pathways, health policy decisions and more relevant and ethical research.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 4-8 |
| Journal | Evidence-Based Medicine |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
Wrong guidelines : How to detect them and what to do in the case of flawed recommendations. / Iannone, Primiano; Costantino, Giorgio; Montano, Nicola; Podda, Gian Marco; Minardi, Monica; Doyle, James; Cartabellotta, Antonino.
In: Evidence-Based Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2017, p. 4-8.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Wrong guidelines
T2 - How to detect them and what to do in the case of flawed recommendations
AU - Iannone, Primiano
AU - Costantino, Giorgio
AU - Montano, Nicola
AU - Podda, Gian Marco
AU - Minardi, Monica
AU - Doyle, James
AU - Cartabellotta, Antonino
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Any evidence-based recommendation needs careful assessment of its methodological background as well as of its content trustworthiness, especially given that following it will not necessarily produce the intended clinical outcomes. There are no established instruments to evaluate guidelines for their content, while useful tools assessing the quality of methods followed are well recognised and adopted. We suggest a 'safety bundle' considering methodological aspects and content trustworthiness of guidelines, by adopting the GRADE method in a backward fashion. Sharing the critical analysis of the guidelines with patients, including any eventual uncertainty about them, is of key importance in order to avoid the possible adverse effects derived from following the wrong guidelines. Such critical approach is also helpful and beneficial in producing better care pathways, health policy decisions and more relevant and ethical research.
AB - Any evidence-based recommendation needs careful assessment of its methodological background as well as of its content trustworthiness, especially given that following it will not necessarily produce the intended clinical outcomes. There are no established instruments to evaluate guidelines for their content, while useful tools assessing the quality of methods followed are well recognised and adopted. We suggest a 'safety bundle' considering methodological aspects and content trustworthiness of guidelines, by adopting the GRADE method in a backward fashion. Sharing the critical analysis of the guidelines with patients, including any eventual uncertainty about them, is of key importance in order to avoid the possible adverse effects derived from following the wrong guidelines. Such critical approach is also helpful and beneficial in producing better care pathways, health policy decisions and more relevant and ethical research.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007256452&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007256452&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110607
DO - 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110607
M3 - Article
VL - 22
SP - 4
EP - 8
JO - Evidence-Based Medicine
JF - Evidence-Based Medicine
SN - 1356-5524
IS - 1
ER -