A Clinical Practice Guideline

  • Aleksei Dingel
  • Jayson Murray
  • James Carey
  • Deborah Cummins
  • Kevin SheaEmail author


After extensive inquiry and backlash against the historic recommendation-based clinical practice guidelines, the Institute of Medicine, and others, called for a revision of the recommendation-based clinical practice guidelines. The new guidelines were to be evidence-based. A rigorous rubric was created to standardize the development process of future clinical practice guidelines. These evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are designed to stand certain scrutiny their recommendation-based predecessors could not, improve the quality of health care, decrease inefficiencies, and reduce practice variation. Through the extensive and deliberate analysis of high-quality medical literature, clinical practice guidelines provide evidence-supported health-care plans for physicians and patients alike. As clinical practice guidelines serve as a summary of scientific evidence available, those areas which lack adequate clinical research may become research priority.


Clinical practice guidelines CPGs Evidence-based Systematic review 


  1. 1.
    Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC; 2011.
  2. 2.
    Shea KG, Sink EL, Jacobs JC Jr. Clinical practice guidelines and guideline development. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32(Suppl 2):S95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC; 2001.
  4. 4.
    Rosenfeld RM, Shiffman RN, Robertson P, Department of Otolaryngology State University of New York. Clinical practice guideline development manual, third edition: a quality-driven approach for translating evidence into action. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148:S1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foundation TRWJ. Chronic care in America: the 21st century challenge. 1996. Accessed 19 Sept 2000.
  6. 6.
    Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. JAMA. 1998;280:1000–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooke CR, Gould MK. Advancing clinical practice and policy through guidelines: the role of the American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187:910–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffman C, Rice D, Sung HY. Persons with chronic conditions. Their prevalence and costs. JAMA. 1996;276:1473–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerteis J. Multiple chronic conditions Chartbook: 2010 medical expenditure panel survey data. 2014.
  10. 10.
    Hempstead K. The real killer is still out there: update on health care spending. 2017.
  11. 11.
    Roehrig C. The health SPending slowdown for 2008–2013: implications for sustainability. 2017.
  12. 12.
    Centers for Disease Control. Arthritis—National Statistics. 2017. Located at: CDC.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Association PIaAH. Quality and patient safety. 2006.
  14. 14.
    AAOS. Clinical Practice Guidelines. Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA. 2003;290:921–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Riaz H, Raza S, Khan MS, Riaz IB, Krasuski RA. Impact of funding source on clinical trial results including cardiovascular outcome trials. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1944–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gagnon A. Corporate influence over clinical research: considering the alternatives. Prescrire Int. 2012;21:191–4.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:252–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shea KGMC, Quinn R, Beckmann JT. Evidence based quality and outcomes assessment in Pediatric Orthopedics. Rosemont, IL: AAOS; 2016.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jevsevar D, Shea K, Cummins D, Murray J, Sanders J. Recent changes in the AAOS evidence-based clinical practice guidelines process. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:1740–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. AAOS Introductory Packet for Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG)/Systematic Review (SR) Work Group Members. 2015:31.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    AAOS. Guideline peer review and public responses. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
  25. 25.
    Waters E. Evidence for public health decision-making: towards reliable synthesis. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87:164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Woolf SH. When should clinical guidelines be updated? BMJ. 2001;323:155–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Located at: Clinical Practice Guidelines. 2015.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kevin G Shea CTP. Turning a CPG into a care map. 2016. Accessed 14 Nov 2017.
  29. 29.
    AAOS. DDH Care Map-Diagnoses and Referral Pathway. 2016.

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksei Dingel
    • 1
  • Jayson Murray
    • 2
  • James Carey
    • 3
  • Deborah Cummins
    • 2
  • Kevin Shea
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryStanford University Medical CenterStanfordUSA
  2. 2.American Academy for Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)NorridgeUSA
  3. 3.Pennsylvania HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations