Evaluating the quality of clinical practice guidelines

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-4754(01)19243-2Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective: To review and identify established methods for evaluating the quality of practice guidelines and to use a selected assessment tool to assess 2 chiropractic practice guideline documents.

Methods: A search of the medical literature was performed to identify current methods and procedures for practice guideline evaluation. Two chiropractic practice guideline documents, Vertebral Subluxation in Chiropractic Practice (CCP) and Guidelines for Chiropractic Quality Assurance and Practice Parameters (Mercy) were then independently evaluated for validity by 10 appraisers using the identified appraisal tool. The appraisal scores were tabulated, and consensus appraisals were generated for the CCP and Mercy guideline documents.

Results: The “Appraisal Instrument for Clinical Guidelines” (Cluzeau instrument) was identified as a reliable and valid method of guideline evaluation. The result of the application of this appraisal tool in the assessment of the CCP and Mercy guideline documents was that the former scored notably lower than the latter. On the basis of the results of the guideline appraisals, the CCP document is not recommended, and its guidelines are not considered suitable for application in chiropractic practice. The Mercy guidelines are recommended for application in chiropractic practice, with the proviso that new scientific data should be considered.

Conclusions: The literature reviewed suggests that professional organizations or groups should undertake a critical review of guidelines using available critical guideline appraisal tools. Guideline validity appraisal should be done before acceptance by the chiropractic profession. To avoid unwarranted utilization of poorly constructed guidelines, it is strongly recommended that all future guidelines be reviewed for validity and scientific accuracy with the findings published in a medically indexed journal before they are adopted by the chiropractic community. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001; 24:170-6)

References (36)

  • G Feder et al.

    Clinical guidelines: using clinical guidelines

    BMJ

    (1999)
  • S Weingarten et al.

    Reducing lengths of stay in the coronary care unit with a practice guideline for patients with congestive heart failure: insights from a controlled clinical trial

    Med Care

    (1994)
  • Vertebral subluxation in chiropractic practice

    The Council

    (1998)
  • S Haldeman et al.
  • RS Hayward et al.

    More informative abstracts of articles describing clinical practice guidelines

    Ann Intern Med

    (1993)
  • RD Mootz et al.

    Practice guidelines, clinical pathways and technology assessments in chiropractic

  • F Cluzeau et al.
  • M Eccles et al.

    North of England evidence-based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development

    BMJ

    (1996)
  • Cited by (24)

    • An Independent AGREE Evaluation of the Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines

      2006, Spine Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      In California, where low back injuries comprised 39% of new worker's compensation claims in 2003 [4], the ACOEM Guidelines are legislatively mandated as “presumptively correct” for evaluation and management of all musculoskeletal injuries in the worker's compensation system. It is generally accepted that peer review and testing of health-care guidelines should be performed prior to their acceptance as being valid and their subsequent utilization in clinical practice [5,6]. The purpose of this paper is to report the results of an analysis of the quality of the Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines, Second Edition, published by the ACOEM [7].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Submit reprint requests to: Jeffrey R. Cates, DC, 200 N. 6th Street, Oregon, IL 61061.

    View full text