Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Aug;16(4):308-12.
doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.019752.

Guidelines in context of evidence

Eeva Ketola  1 , Minna Kaila, Mari Honkanen
Affiliations

Guidelines in context of evidence

Eeva Ketola et al. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: In clinical practice guidelines, the quality of the available evidence is graded according to its reliability and quality. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of the available research evidence, using the levels of evidence, in the evidence summaries of 64 Finnish national evidence-based Current Care guidelines.

Design: Descriptive assessment.

Setting: Electronic web-based guidelines in Finland.

Main outcome measures: The proportions of evidence summaries with different levels of evidence (A-D).

Results: The 64 guidelines had a total of 2419 evidence summaries. Of these, 532 (22.0%) were evidence level A, 891 (36.8%) were evidence level B, 808 (33.4%) were evidence level C, and 188 (7.8%) were evidence level D. Most--that is, 81% of the level C and D evidence summaries dealt with diagnosis and treatment. Most of the evidence summaries pertained to treatment (58.2%) and diagnosis (22.4%). The sections on diagnosis and treatment represented 80% of all the level A and level B evidence, and 81% of all the level C and level D evidence.

Conclusions: There is adequate high-quality evidence (level A) to support only a fifth of the main statements of the 64 guidelines. This is most likely an optimistic estimate, since level D evidence often does not have an evidence summary. The guideline development groups find it easier to agree on recommendations based on level A and level B evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Shojania K G, Mcdonald K M, Wachter R M.et alClosing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies, volume 1—series overview and methodology. AHRQ Publication No. 04‐0051‐1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, August 2004. http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/qualgap1/qualgap1.pdf (accessed 3 June 2006) - PubMed
    1. Staniszewska S H, Henderson L. Patients' evaluations of the quality of care: influencing factors and the importance of engagement. J Adv Nurs 200549530–537. - PubMed
    1. Muir Gray J A.Evidence‐based health care: how to make health policy and management decisions. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2001
    1. Ollenschläger G, Marshall C, Qureshi S.et al Improving the quality of health care: using international collaboration to inform guideline programmes by founding the Guidelines International Network (G‐I‐N). Qual Saf Health Care 200413455–460. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, GRADE Working Group et al Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004438 - PMC - PubMed