rss
Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:308-312 doi:10.1136/qshc.2006.019752
  • Original Article

Guidelines in context of evidence

  1. Eeva Ketola1,
  2. Minna Kaila2,
  3. Mari Honkanen3
  1. 1Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Helsinki, Finland
  2. 2Department of Pediatrics, Tampere University Hospital, and Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment at STAKES, Finland
  3. 3Current Care, Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Helsinki, Finland
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr Eeva Ketola
 Current Care Guidelines, Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Helsinki, Finland; eeva.ketola{at}duodecim.fi
  • Accepted 8 April 2007

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.

Footnotes

  • No ethics approval was required for this study.

  • Competing interests: None.

  • EK is the Editor-in Chief and MH is Editor of Current Care Guidelines.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.