Recommendations are proposed for preparing more informative abstracts of articles describing clinical practice guidelines. Information about the development and content of guidelines should be summarized with the following structure.
Objective:
a succinct statement of the objective of the guideline, including the targeted health problem, the targeted patients and providers, and the main reason for developing recommendations concerning this problem for this population.
Options:
principal practice options that were considered in formulating the guideline.
Outcomes:
significant health and economic outcomes identified as potential consequences of the practice options.
Evidence:
methods used to gather, select, and synthesize evidence, and the date of the most recent evidence obtained.
Values:
persons and methods used to assign values (relative importance) to potential outcomes of alternative practice options.
Benefits, Harms, and Costs:
the type and magnitude of the main benefits, harms, and costs that are expected to result from guideline implementation.
Recommendations:
a brief and specific list of key recommendations.
Validation:
the results of any external review, comparison with guidelines developed by other groups, or clinical testing of guideline use.
Sponsors:
key persons or groups that developed, funded, or endorsed the guideline.
Abstracts adhering to these recommendations could enhance readers' ability to appraise the applicability, importance, and validity of guidelines for specific providers, patients, and settings. More informative abstracts could also promote the use of more explicit methods of guideline development, more consistent reporting of guideline documents, and the more appropriate use of guidelines by clinicians.
References
- 1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106:485-8. Google Scholar
- 2. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Can Med Assoc J. 1988; 138:697-703. Google Scholar
- 3. Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med. 1988; 108:613-5. Google Scholar
- 4. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113:69-76. Google Scholar
- 5. Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Institute of Medicine; Field MJ, Lohr KN, eds. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. Google Scholar
- 6. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Practice policiesguidelines for methods. JAMA. 1990; 263:1839-41. Google Scholar
- 7. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Guidelines for policy statements: the explicit approach. JAMA. 1990; 263: 2239-43. Google Scholar
- 8. American College of Physicians. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project: Procedural Manual. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1986. Google Scholar
- 9. Gottlieb LK, Margolis CZ, Schoenbaum SC. Clinical practice guidelines at an HMO: development and implementation in a quality improvement model. QRB. 1990; 16:80-6. Google Scholar
- 10. Eddy DM. A Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Policies: The Explicit Approach. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1992. Google Scholar
- 11. Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Institute of Medicine; Field MJ, Lohr KN, eds; Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992. Google Scholar
- 12. Health Services Research Group. Standards, guidelines and clinical policies. Can Med Assoc J. 1992; 146:833-837. Google Scholar
- 13. Hayward RS, Laupacis A. Initiating, conducting and maintaining guideline development programs. Can Med Assoc J. 1993; 148:507-12. Google Scholar
- 14. L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 107:224-33. Google Scholar
- 15. Sackman H. Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books; 1975. Google Scholar
- 16. Woolf SH, Battista RN, Anderson GM, Logan AG, Wang E. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43: 891-905. Google Scholar
- 17. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1992; 102:305S-311S. Google Scholar
- 18. American Cancer Society. Summary of Current Guidelines for the Cancer-Related Checkup: Recommendations. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society; 1988. Google Scholar
- 19. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination: 2. 1985 update. Can Med Assoc J. 1986; 134:724-7. Google Scholar
- 20. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin MR, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984; 74: 979-83. Google Scholar
- 21. Laupacis A, Naylor CD, Sackett DL. How should the results of clinical trials be presented to clinicians? (Editorial). ACP J Club. 1992 May-Jun:A12-4 (Ann Intern Med. vol. 116, suppl 1). Google Scholar
- 22. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Practice policieswhat are they? JAMA. 1990; 263:877-80. Google Scholar
- 23. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Designing a practice policy. Standards, guidelines, and options. JAMA. 1990; 263:3077, 3081, 3084. Google Scholar
- 24. American College of Physicians. Screening for breast cancer. In: Eddy DM, ed. Common Screening Tests. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1991:411-2. Google Scholar
- 25. Eddy DM. Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1989; 111: 389-99. Google Scholar
- 26. Audet AM, Greenfield S, Field M. Medical practice guidelines: current activities and future directions. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113:709-14. Google Scholar
- 27. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Resolving conflicts in practice policies. JAMA. 1990; 264:389-91. Google Scholar
- 28. Gordillo C. Breast cancer screening guidelines agreed on by AMA and other medically related organizations (News). JAMA. 1989; 262: 1155. Google Scholar
- 29. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106:598-604. Google Scholar
- 30. Naylor CD, Williams JI, Guyatt G. Structured abstracts of proposals for clinical and epidemiological studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44: 731-7. Google Scholar
- 31. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Elstein AS, Frazier HS, Neuhauser D, Neutra RR, McNeil BJ. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1980. Google Scholar
- 32. Sox HC, Jr., Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Medical Decision Making. Boston: Butterworths; 1988. Google Scholar
- 33. Feinstein AR. Clinical Epidemiology. The Architecture of Clinical Research. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1985. Google Scholar
- 34. Meinert CL, Tonascia S. Clinical Trials: Design, Conduct, and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. Google Scholar
- 35. Last JM, ed. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1988. Google Scholar
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
From Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
Corresponding Author: Robert Hayward, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, 1200 Main Street West, Room 3H7, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank David Eddy, Marilyn Field, Betsy Humphreys, Edward Huth, Betty King, David Levine, Kathleen McCormick, and Harold Sox, Jr., for their help throughout the development of this proposal; Earl Steinberg for detailed feedback on previous versions of this manuscript; and the many persons involved with guideline development, evaluation, and implementation who suggested improvements to the proposal.
Grant Support: In part by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.
Submit a Comment
Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
*All comments submitted after October 1, 2021 and selected for publication will be published online only.