Why Guidelines Require Reform

  • Andrew RhodesEmail author
  • Maurizio Cecconi
  • Rui Moreno


Clinical practice guidelines are nowadays seen as a necessity in order to summarize an ever-burgeoning amount of published evidence into a simple format that practicing clinicians can read, digest and implement in order to improve a patient’s outcome. Their use has also been advocated to reduce the gap between bench and bedside, to standardize clinical practice with the avoidance of inappropriate variations, to reduce the risk of legal claims and as a tool for quality assurance. Indeed, even a cursory inspection of PubMed reveals just how vast the published evidence is. In 2009 alone, there were 7,082 papers published that are retrieved when searching on the term ­“critical care.” If we also consider other databases, with the knowledge that a significant issue exists concerning language bias and publication bias (Grégoire et al. 1995), the volume is even greater.


Clinical Practice Guideline Vested Interest Guideline Development Peer Review Process Survive Sepsis Campaign 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amerling R, Winchester JF, Ronco C (2008) Guidelines have done more harm than good. Blood Purif 26:73–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertolini G, Rossi C, Anghileri A, Livigni S, Addis A, Poole D (2007) Use of Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in Italian intensive care units: the results of a nationwide survey. Intensive Care Med 33:426–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berwick DM (2008) The science of improvement. JAMA 299:1182–1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browman GP (2010) Evidence-based clinical practice guideline development: principles, challenges, and accountability to evidence. J Surg Oncol 101:1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, Gea-Banacloche J, Keh D, Marshall JC, Parker MM, Ramsay G, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL, Levy MM (2004) Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med 30:536–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson BT, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL (2008) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 34:17–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, Blanco J, González-Días G, Garnacho-Montero J, Ibáñez J, Palencia E, Quintana M, de la Torre-Prados MV, Edusepsis Study Group (2008) Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA 299:2294–2303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao F, Melody T, Daniels DF, Giles S, Fox S (2005) The impact of compliance with 6-hour and 24-hour sepsis bundles on hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational study. Crit Care 9:R764–R770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GRADE Working Group (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 328:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J (1995) Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol 48:159–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, Mura G, Liberati A (2000) Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies. The need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT (1993) Achieving health gain through clinical guidelines. I: developing scientifically valid guidelines. Qual Health Care 2:243–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grol R (2010) Has guideline development gone astray? Yes. Br Med J 340:c306. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, Addrizzo-Harris D, Hylek EM, Phillips B (2006) Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American College of Chest Physicians task force. Chest 129:174–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Institute of Medicine (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education and practice. National Academics Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schünemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, Norris S, Bion J, GRADE Working Group (2008) Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. Br Med J 337:a744. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanji S, Perreault MM, Chant C, Williamson D, Burry L (2007) Evaluating the use of Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adult severe sepsis: a Canadian multicenter observational study. Intensive Care Med 33:517–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landucci D (2004) The surviving sepsis guidelines: “lost in translation”. Crit Care Med 32:1598–1600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levy MM, Pronovost PJ, Dellinger RP, Townsend S, Resar RK, Clemmer TP, Ramsay G (2004) Sepsis change bundles: converting guidelines into meaningful change in behavior and clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 320:S595–S597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Machado FR, Freitas FGR (2008) Controversies of surviving sepsis campaign bundles: should we use them? Shock 30:34–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marwick C, Davey P (2009) Care bundles: the holy grail of infectious risk management in hospital? Curr Opin Infect Dis 22:364–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poole D, Bertolini G, Garattini S (2008) Errors in the approval process and post-marketing evaluation of drotrecogin alfa (activated) for the treatment of severe sepsis. Lancet Infect Dis 9:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, Sexton B, Hyzy R, Welsh R, Roth G, Bander J, Kepros J, Goeschel C (2006) An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 355:2725–2732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, Ernst A, Fahy BF, Gould MK, Horan KL, Krishnan JA, Manthous CA, Maurer JR, McNicholas WT, Oxman AD, Rubenfeld G, Turino GM, Guyatt G, ATS Documents Development and Implementation Committee (2006) An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 174:605–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J (1999) Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281:1900–1905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999) Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. Br Med J 318:593–596Google Scholar
  27. The AGREE Collaboration (2003) Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 12:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas KW (2007) Adoption of sepsis bundles in the emergency room and intensive care unit: a model for quality improvement. Crit Care Med 35:1210–1212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wip C, Napolitano L (2009) Bundles to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: how valuable are they? Curr Opin Infect Dis 22:159–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Intensive Care MedicineSt George’s Healthcare NHS TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Unidade de Cuidados Intensivos PolivalenteHospital de St. António dos Capuchos, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, E.P.ELisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations