Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Gastroenterology 1/2015

01.01.2015 | Special Article

JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines

verfasst von: Masahiro Yoshida, Yoshikazu Kinoshita, Mamoru Watanabe, Kentaro Sugano

Erschienen in: Journal of Gastroenterology | Ausgabe 1/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) had already published its guidelines on six diseases, namely, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, liver cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, gallstone disease, and chronic pancreatitis, in Japanese, and distributed them, together with their sister versions for laypeople, to its members. These guidelines are sold in bookstores, widely used even by people who are not JSGE members, and the contents are often cited in other publications. Considering the need and importance of having proper guidelines on the so-called common diseases, JSGE conducted a questionnaire survey on JSGE councilors to collect their views on priority diseases for which additional guidelines should be developed, and decided to prepare additional guidelines for functional gastrointestinal disorder, colorectal polyp, and NAFLD/NASH. In the subsequent process of developing the guidelines, it was further decided that two separate guidelines, one for functional dyspepsia (FD) and the other for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), should be developed for functional gastrointestinal disorders. Therefore, the second series of JSGE guidelines (JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014; Japanese version) was published, covering a total of four diseases. …
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Fukui T, Yamaguchi N, Morizane T, Yoshida M, Kojimahara N, editors. MINDS handbook for clinical practice guideline development 2014. Tokyo: Igaku-shoin; 2014. Fukui T, Yamaguchi N, Morizane T, Yoshida M, Kojimahara N, editors. MINDS handbook for clinical practice guideline development 2014. Tokyo: Igaku-shoin; 2014.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Aihara M, Mihara H, Murayama T, Aihara T, Fukuda S. GRADE System for clinical practice guideline—therapeutic intervention. Hirosaki: Toppan-media; 2010. Aihara M, Mihara H, Murayama T, Aihara T, Fukuda S. GRADE System for clinical practice guideline—therapeutic intervention. Hirosaki: Toppan-media; 2010.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat The GRADE* working group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490–4 (printed, abridged version).CrossRef The GRADE* working group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490–4 (printed, abridged version).CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, GRADE Working Group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, GRADE Working Group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, GRADE Working Group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, GRADE Working Group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, GRADE Working Group, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, GRADE Working Group, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, GRADE working group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1170–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, GRADE working group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1170–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, GRADE Working Group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1049–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, GRADE Working Group, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:1049–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, GRADE working group, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ. 2008;337:a744.PubMedCrossRef Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, GRADE working group, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ. 2008;337:a744.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl E, et al. GRADE guidelines 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl E, et al. GRADE guidelines 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:295–400. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:295–400.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines 3: rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.PubMedCrossRef Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines 3: rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines 4: rating the quality of evidence—study limitation (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–15.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines 4: rating the quality of evidence—study limitation (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–15.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines 5: rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1277–82.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines 5: rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1277–82.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–93.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–93.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, The GRADE Working Group, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–302.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, The GRADE Working Group, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–302.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, The GRADE Working Group, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1303–10.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, The GRADE Working Group, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1303–10.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, The GRADE Working Group, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1311–6.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, The GRADE Working Group, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1311–6.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Brunetti M, Shemilt I, The GRADE Working, et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:140–50.PubMedCrossRef Brunetti M, Shemilt I, The GRADE Working, et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:140–50.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:151–7.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:151–7.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines 12. Preparing summary of findings tables binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:158–72.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines 12. Preparing summary of findings tables binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:158–72.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, et al. GRADE guidelines 13. Preparing summary of findings tables-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):173–83.PubMedCrossRef Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, et al. GRADE guidelines 13. Preparing summary of findings tables-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):173–83.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. JCE. 2013;66(2):719–25.PubMed Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. JCE. 2013;66(2):719–25.PubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726–35.PubMedCrossRef Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726–35.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines
verfasst von
Masahiro Yoshida
Yoshikazu Kinoshita
Mamoru Watanabe
Kentaro Sugano
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2015
Verlag
Springer Japan
Erschienen in
Journal of Gastroenterology / Ausgabe 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0944-1174
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-5922
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-014-1016-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

Journal of Gastroenterology 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

EDITORIAL—50TH ANNIVERSARY 1966–2015

Journal of Gastroenterology in the era of globalization

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Strenge Blutdruckeinstellung lohnt auch im Alter noch

30.04.2024 Arterielle Hypertonie Nachrichten

Ältere Frauen, die von chronischen Erkrankungen weitgehend verschont sind, haben offenbar die besten Chancen, ihren 90. Geburtstag zu erleben, wenn ihr systolischer Blutdruck < 130 mmHg liegt. Das scheint selbst für 80-Jährige noch zu gelten.

Die „Zehn Gebote“ des Endokarditis-Managements

30.04.2024 Endokarditis Leitlinie kompakt

Worauf kommt es beim Management von Personen mit infektiöser Endokarditis an? Eine Kardiologin und ein Kardiologe fassen die zehn wichtigsten Punkte der neuen ESC-Leitlinie zusammen.

Reizdarmsyndrom: Diäten wirksamer als Medikamente

29.04.2024 Reizdarmsyndrom Nachrichten

Bei Reizdarmsyndrom scheinen Diäten, wie etwa die FODMAP-arme oder die kohlenhydratreduzierte Ernährung, effektiver als eine medikamentöse Therapie zu sein. Das hat eine Studie aus Schweden ergeben, die die drei Therapieoptionen im direkten Vergleich analysierte.

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.