 |
|
Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines
Dong Heun Lee, MD;
Ole Vielemeyer, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(1):18-22. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.482
Background Clinical practice guidelines are developed to assist in patient care. Physicians may assume that following such guidelines means practicing evidence-based medicine. However, the quality of supporting literature can vary greatly.
Methods We analyzed the strength of recommendation and overall quality of evidence behind 41 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines released between January 1994 and May 2010. Individual recommendations were classified based on their strength of recommendation (levels A through C) and quality of evidence (levels I through III). Guidelines not following this format were excluded from further analysis. Evolution of IDSA guidelines was assessed by comparing 5 recently updated guidelines with their earlier versions.
Results In the 41 analyzed guidelines, 4218 individual recommendations were found and tabulated. Fourteen percent of the recommendations were classified as level I, 31% as level II, and 55% as level III evidence. Among class A recommendations (good evidence for support), 23% were level I ( 1 randomized controlled trial) and 37% were based on expert opinion only (level III). Updated guidelines expanded the absolute number of individual recommendations substantially. However, few were due to a sizable increase in level I evidence; most additional recommendations had level II and III evidence.
Conclusions More than half of the current recommendations of the IDSA are based on level III evidence only. Until more data from well-designed controlled clinical trials become available, physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions.
Author Affiliations: Division of Infectious Diseases and HIV Medicine, Department of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Evaluation of IDSA Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Call to Re-GRADE Underlying Evidence
Abdur Rahman Khan, Larry M. Baddour, and Imad M. Tleyjeh
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(15):1403-1404.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation of IDSA Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Call to Re-GRADE Underlying Evidence—Reply
Dong Heun Lee and Ole Vielemeyer
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(15):1403-1404.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Practice Guidelines: Belief, Criticism, and Probability
John H. Powers
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(1):15-17.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Commentary on Anand et al.
Califf
Clin Trials 2011;8:724-725.
FULL TEXT
Challenges Facing the US Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Ommaya and Kupersmith
JAMA 2011;306:756-757.
FULL TEXT
Improving Clinical Practice Guidelines--The Answer Is More Clinical Research
Deresinski and File
Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1402-1403.
FULL TEXT
Evaluation of IDSA Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Call to Re-GRADE Underlying Evidence
Khan et al.
Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1403-1404.
FULL TEXT
Evaluation of IDSA Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Call to Re-GRADE Underlying Evidence--Reply
Lee and Vielemeyer
Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1403-1404.
FULL TEXT
All you need to read in the other general journals
BMJ 2011;342:d313-d313.
FULL TEXT
Practice Guidelines: Belief, Criticism, and Probability
Powers
Arch Intern Med 2011;171:15-17.
FULL TEXT
RAPID RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE
Disappointed
Paul Schulz
Arch Intern Med Online, 20 Oct 2011.
TEXT
|
