Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Letters

Assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines

James McCormack, Thomas Perry, Robert Rangno, Casey van Breemen and James M. Wright
CMAJ January 22, 2002 166 (2) 168;
James McCormack
Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Perry Jr
Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Rangno
Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Casey van Breemen
Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James M. Wright
Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC; Therapeutics Initiative University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Assessment of the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is essential, and a systematic review of these guidelines is strongly encouraged. To that end, Ian Graham and colleagues have taken an important step in trying to assess the quality of a number of Canadian CPGs.1

The authors state that CPGs are “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.” However, 38 (17.5%) of the 217 “guidelines” reviewed for this article were letters produced by the Therapeutics Initiative. In our opinion, these letters should have been considered as systematically developed reviews of evidence, not CPGs.

Since 1994, 41 Therapeutics Initiative letters have been produced. In general, our objective is to provide clinicians with an assessment and synthesis of published (and, whenever possible, peer-reviewed) evidence from clinical trials. The information is primarily, although not exclusively, a synopsis of the evidence from randomized controlled trials. We occasionally make recommendations in our letters for the “optimal” clinical use of drugs when supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. We hope that clinicians combine these synopses with clinical judgement when making decisions about drug therapy for individual patients. Evidence from randomized controlled trials should also be the underpinning of all CPGs; however, in order to generate bottom-line recommendations, authors of CPGs often have to resort to less rigorous evidence or clinical opinion or both, owing to the limited availability of high-quality evidence.

For example, the most recent Canadian guidelines for initial management of community-acquired pneumonia furnish an exhaustive review of this condition; however, there is no clear evidence from randomized controlled trials favouring any one antibiotic regime.2 In fact, the authors urge recognition that “these recommendations [for the selection of antibiotics] are derived by the consensus of experts and not entirely based on evidence from randomized clinical trials.”2

These important differences between systematically developed recommendations (e.g., CPGs) and systematically developed reviews of the evidence (e.g., Therapeutics Initiative letters, Cochrane Library) render an appraisal instrument for clinical guidelines less appropriate for assessing systematically developed reviews of evidence. Many of the criteria in Table 1 of the article by Graham and colleagues are not relevant to the latter process. Nonetheless, these authors have presented a number of criteria relevant to both guidelines and systematic reviews of the evidence; we will review these to see if there are areas in which we can improve.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Graham ID, Beardall S, Carter AO, Glennie J, Hébert PC, Tetroe JM, et al. What is the quality of drug therapy clinical practice guidelines in Canada? CMAJ 2001;165(2):157-63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Mandell LA, Marrie TJU, Grossman RF, Chow AW, Hyland RH, and the Canadian Community-Acquired Pneumonia Working Group. Canadian guidelines for the initial management of community-acquired pneumonia: an evidence-based update by the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society and the Canadian Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:383-421.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 166, Issue 2
22 Jan 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines
James McCormack, Thomas Perry, Robert Rangno, Casey van Breemen, James M. Wright
CMAJ Jan 2002, 166 (2) 168;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines
James McCormack, Thomas Perry, Robert Rangno, Casey van Breemen, James M. Wright
CMAJ Jan 2002, 166 (2) 168;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Conflict between Guideline Methodologic Quality and Recommendation Validity: A Potential Problem for Practitioners
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The 5 Ps need an update: toward a comprehensive sexual history
  • Don’t ignore perimenopause
  • Hospital-at-home programs in Canada: challenges and pitfalls
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Article Types
    • Guidelines
  • Topics
    • Pharmacology & toxicology

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire