Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Guidelines: Options and Limit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Art of Hernia Surgery

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been created with the intention of facilitating decision-making. They offer explicit and concise recommendations for diagnosis, management (e.g., surgical treatments), and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. All information included in CPGs is the result of a systematic review of published studies, which are collected according to strict selection criteria. The process of developing guidelines involves a series of well-defined consecutive phases to assess the quality of evidence, according to which final recommendations are build. In this chapter, we describe the main aspects involved in the development and implementation of CPGs with special emphasis on the GRADE system. All parties involved, clinicians, patients, policy makers, and payers should be aware that guidelines are intended for marking care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians (surgeons) do and what scientific evidence supports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bell RH Jr. Why Johnny cannot operate. Surgery. 2009;146:533–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Francis DMA. Surgical decision making. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79:886–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Dombal FT. Surgical decision making. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Grupo de Variaciones en la Práctica Médica de la Red temática de Investigación en Resultados y Servicios de Salud (Grupo VPM-IRYSS). Variaciones en Intervenciones de Cirugía General en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. 2005;1:59. http://www.atlasvpm.org/documents/10157/22351/Atlasnumero2_%286.72MB%29.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.

  5. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Program. https://consensus.nih.gov. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.

  7. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lázaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method User’s manual. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Institutes of Health. Office of Disease Prevention. Strategic plan. https://prevention.nih.gov/strategic-plan. Accessed 7 Jan 2010.

  9. Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a New Agency. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 1990. p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Woolf SH. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:946–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Briones E, Vidal S, Navarro A, Marín I. Conflict of interest and Spanish clinical guidelines. Med Clin (Barc). 2006;127:634–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:593–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lara M, Goodman C, editors. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Woolf SH. An organized analytic framework for practice guideline development: using the analytic logic as a guide for reviewing evidence, developing recommendations, and explaining the rationale. In: McCormick KA, Moore SR, Siegel RA, editors. Methodology perspectives. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994. p. 105–13.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape LL, Bernstein SJ, Hilborne LH, Parker L, et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care. 1996;34:512–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Coulter I, Adams A, Shekelle P. Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels—a comparison of a multi and single disciplinary panel. Health Serv Res. 1995;30:577–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Flemming K. Critical appraisal. 2. Searchable questions. NT Learn Curve. 1999;3:6–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90:837–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res. 2002;15:197–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shekelle P. Assessing the predictive validity of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method criteria for performing carotid endarterectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:707–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pacini D, Murana G, Leone A, Di Marco L, Pantaleo A. The value and limitations of guidelines, expert consensus, and registries on the management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;49:413–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alonso-Coello P, Rigau D, Sanabria AJ, Plaza V, Miravitlles M, Martinez L. Quality and strength: the GRADE system for formulating recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Arch Bronconeumol. 2013;49:261–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Neumann I, Pantoja T, Peñaloza B, Cifuentes L, Rada G. The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Rev Med Chile. 2014;142:630–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 3: rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines 4: rating the quality of evidence—risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1303–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 5: rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1277–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. GRADEPro GDT. https://gradepro.org. Accessed 4 Mar 2017.

  38. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. GRADE Working Group. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1049–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Field MJ, Lohr KN, Institute of Medicine, Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  40. American Medical Association, Office of Quality Assurance. Attributes to guide the development of practice parameters. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  41. AGREE. Advancing the science of practice guidelines. http://www.agreetrust.org. Accessed 4 Mar 2017.

  42. Feder G, Eccles M, Grol R, Griffiths C, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: using clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7185):728–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to action? Evidence-based health care in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Tetroe J. Implementing clinical guidelines: current evidence and future implications. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2004;24(Suppl 1):S31–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Flores G, Lee M, Bauchner H, Kastner B. Pediatricians’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding clinical practice guidelines: a national survey. Pediatrics. 2000;105:496–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282:1458–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cinel I, Dellinger RP. Guidelines for severe infections: are they useful? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:483–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wensing M, Grol R. Determinants of effective change. In: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, editors. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in clinical practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2005. p. 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kedward J, Dakin L. A qualitative study of barriers to the use of statins and the implementation of coronary heart disease prevention in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53:684–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Brand C, Landgren F, Hutchinson A, Jones C, Macgregor L, Campbell D. Clinical practice guidelines: barriers to durability after effective early implementation. Intern Med J. 2005;35:162–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shapiro DW, Lasker RD, Bindman AB, Lee PR. Containing costs while improving quality of care: the role of profiling and practice guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health. 1993;14:219–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Slim K. Limits of evidence-based surgery. World J Surg. 2005;29:606–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kane RL. Creating practice guidelines: the dangers of over-reliance on expert judgment. J Law Med Ethics. 1995;23:62–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d´Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

    Manuel López-Cano

  2. DPhil Programme in Evidence-Based Healthcare, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Josep M. García-Alamino

Authors
  1. Manuel López-Cano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josep M. García-Alamino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Insubria, Istituto Clinico, Sant’Ambrogio General Surgery Day Surgery, Milan, Italy

    Giampiero Campanelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

López-Cano, M., García-Alamino, J.M. (2018). Guidelines: Options and Limit. In: Campanelli, G. (eds) The Art of Hernia Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72626-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72626-7_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72624-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72626-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation