Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines.
Guidelines
Performance measures
Quality indicator
Systematic review
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 07 2019
09 07 2019
Historique:
received:
31
01
2019
accepted:
18
06
2019
entrez:
11
7
2019
pubmed:
11
7
2019
medline:
24
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating quality indicators (QIs). The objective of this study was to compare guideline-based QIs of German and international CPGs and their underlying methodological approaches. We conducted systematic searches in the guideline databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) between February and June 2017 to identify international CPGs matching the topics of German evidence-based CPGs (n = 35) that report QIs, which were identified in a preceding study. Additionally, we searched the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We included evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs, the underlying guideline recommendations, and information on methods of development were extracted. The selection and extraction of CPGs were conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. For each matched pair of CPGs, we assessed whether the suggested QIs matched or were not directly comparable. Twenty-five international CPGs, originating from seven CPG providers in total, met the criteria for inclusion. They matched the topics of 18 German CPGs. This resulted in 30 CPG pairs for the comparison of QIs (some of the international CPGs matched the topic of more than one German CPG). We found 27 QI pairs with QIs "not different or slightly different", corresponding to 13% (27 of 212) of the QIs in German CPGs and 16% (27 of 166) in international CPGs. Only two QI pairs were judged to be "different/inconsistent". For 183 of 212 (86%) QIs from German CPGs and 137 of 166 (83%) QIs from international CPGs, no direct comparison could be made. An explicit link to one or more guideline recommendations was found for 136 of 152 (89%) QIs from German CPGs and 82 of 166 (49%) QIs from international CPGs. Some information on methods for the development of QIs existed for 12 of 18 (67%) German CPGs and 8 of 25 (32%) international CPGs. The majority of QIs in German and international CPGs were not comparable. Various reasons for this are conceivable. More transparent reporting of the underlying methods for generating guideline-based QIs is needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating quality indicators (QIs). The objective of this study was to compare guideline-based QIs of German and international CPGs and their underlying methodological approaches.
METHODS
We conducted systematic searches in the guideline databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) between February and June 2017 to identify international CPGs matching the topics of German evidence-based CPGs (n = 35) that report QIs, which were identified in a preceding study. Additionally, we searched the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We included evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs, the underlying guideline recommendations, and information on methods of development were extracted. The selection and extraction of CPGs were conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. For each matched pair of CPGs, we assessed whether the suggested QIs matched or were not directly comparable.
RESULTS
Twenty-five international CPGs, originating from seven CPG providers in total, met the criteria for inclusion. They matched the topics of 18 German CPGs. This resulted in 30 CPG pairs for the comparison of QIs (some of the international CPGs matched the topic of more than one German CPG). We found 27 QI pairs with QIs "not different or slightly different", corresponding to 13% (27 of 212) of the QIs in German CPGs and 16% (27 of 166) in international CPGs. Only two QI pairs were judged to be "different/inconsistent". For 183 of 212 (86%) QIs from German CPGs and 137 of 166 (83%) QIs from international CPGs, no direct comparison could be made. An explicit link to one or more guideline recommendations was found for 136 of 152 (89%) QIs from German CPGs and 82 of 166 (49%) QIs from international CPGs. Some information on methods for the development of QIs existed for 12 of 18 (67%) German CPGs and 8 of 25 (32%) international CPGs.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of QIs in German and international CPGs were not comparable. Various reasons for this are conceivable. More transparent reporting of the underlying methods for generating guideline-based QIs is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31288828
doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0918-y
pii: 10.1186/s13012-019-0918-y
pmc: PMC6617919
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
71Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105(1):27-37
pubmed: 21382602
Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Dec;64(629):e752-7
pubmed: 25452539
Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 12;7(1):5
pubmed: 29329578
QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1989 Nov;15(11):330-9
pubmed: 2512521
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2012;25(8):712-29
pubmed: 23276064
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Oct;19(5):e31
pubmed: 20511603
Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 21;7:21
pubmed: 22436067
Palliat Med. 2015 Feb;29(2):157-63
pubmed: 25634899
CMAJ. 2016 Mar 15;188(5):340-348
pubmed: 26903355
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2007;101(10):683-8
pubmed: 18309894
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94
pubmed: 21195583
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):539-49
pubmed: 20169472
Gesundheitswesen. 2014 Dec;76(12):819-26
pubmed: 25531092
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Apr;108:64-76
pubmed: 30529647
Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Dec;11(4):358-64
pubmed: 12468698
QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1992 Nov;18(11):356-60
pubmed: 1465293
Implement Sci. 2016 Jan 15;11:6
pubmed: 26772173
Inquiry. 2018 Jan-Dec;55:46958018761495
pubmed: 29591538
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):8-12
pubmed: 12571338
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Dec;15(6):523-30
pubmed: 14660535
CMAJ. 2015 Feb 17;187(3):184-195
pubmed: 25623643
Int J Qual Health Care. 1997 Jun;9(3):183-8
pubmed: 9209914
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Aug;17(4):291-5
pubmed: 18678728
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(8-9):481-6
pubmed: 25523846
JAMA. 2001 Sep 26;286(12):1461-7
pubmed: 11572738
CMAJ. 2014 Nov 4;186(16):1225-34
pubmed: 25349003
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Feb;15(1):79-85
pubmed: 12630804
BMC Fam Pract. 2011 Aug 10;12:85
pubmed: 21831317
BMJ. 2016 Jun 30;353:i2089
pubmed: 27365494
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Dec;66(12):1328-37
pubmed: 24018342