Consistency of Recommendations for Evaluation and Management of Hypertension.


Journal

JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 11 2019
Historique:
entrez: 23 11 2019
pubmed: 23 11 2019
medline: 17 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Hypertension is very common, but guideline recommendations for hypertension have been controversial, are of increasing interest, and have profound implications. To systematically assess the consistency of recommendations regarding hypertension management across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). This cross-sectional study of hypertension management recommendations included CPGs that had been published as of April 2018. Two point-of-care resources that provided graded recommendations were included for secondary analyses. Discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states were used to define a series of reference recommendations. Three raters reached consensus on coding the direction and strength of each recommendation made by each CPG. Three independent raters reached consensus on the importance of each reference recommendation. The main outcomes were rates of consistency for direction and strength among CPGs. Sensitivity analyses testing the robustness were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence, excluding single recommendation sources, and stratifying by importance of recommendations. The analysis included 8 CPGs with a total of 71 reference recommendations, 68 of which had clear recommendations from 2 or more CPGs. Across CPGs, 22 recommendations (32%) were consistent in direction and strength, 18 recommendations (27%) were consistent in direction but inconsistent in strength, and 28 recommendations (41%) were inconsistent in direction. The rate of consistency was lower in secondary analyses. When insufficient evidence ratings were excluded, there was still substantial inconsistency, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested the inconsistency could not be attributed to any single recommendation source. Inconsistency in direction was more common for recommendations deemed to be of lower importance (11 of 20 recommendations [55%]), but 17 of 48 high-importance recommendations (35%) had inconsistency in direction. Hypertension is a common chronic condition with widespread expectations surrounding guideline-based care, yet CPGs have a high rate of inconsistency. Further investigations should determine the reasons for inconsistency, the implications for recommendation development, and the role of synthesis across recommendations for optimal guidance of clinical care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31755945
pii: 2755862
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15975
pmc: PMC6902818
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1915975

Références

Eur Heart J. 2013 Jul;34(28):2159-219
pubmed: 23771844
JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311(5):507-20
pubmed: 24352797
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;102:147-148
pubmed: 29936134
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
pubmed: 8555924
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Mar 21;166(6):430-437
pubmed: 28135725
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Mar 6;168(5):369-370
pubmed: 29357397
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Sep 1;177(9):1239-1240
pubmed: 28692733
Hypertension. 2003 Dec;42(6):1206-52
pubmed: 14656957
Virtual Mentor. 2011 Jan 01;13(1):36-41
pubmed: 23121815
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Apr 3;156(7):525-31
pubmed: 22473437
JAMA. 2017 Apr 4;317(13):1309-1310
pubmed: 28384834
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):e127-e248
pubmed: 29146535
Can J Cardiol. 2018 May;34(5):506-525
pubmed: 29731013
Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39(33):3021-3104
pubmed: 30165516

Auteurs

Brian S Alper (BS)

Innovations and Evidence-Based Medicine Development, EBSCO Health, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine, Ipswich, Massachusetts.

Amy Price (A)

Stanford Medicine X, Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Esther J van Zuuren (EJ)

Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Zbys Fedorowicz (Z)

Veritas Health Sciences Consultancy, Huntingdon, United Kingdom.

Allen F Shaughnessy (AF)

Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Peter Oettgen (P)

DynaMed, EBSCO Health, Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

Glyn Elwyn (G)

Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, New Hampshire.

Amir Qaseem (A)

American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Ilkka Kunnamo (I)

Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines, Duodecim Medical Publications, Helsinki, Finland.

Urvi Gupta (U)

Stanford Medicine X, Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.

Deborah D Carter (DD)

Murdy Consultant Group, Newark, Ohio.

Michael Mittelman (M)

The American Living Organ Donor Fund, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Carla Berg-Nelson (C)

Society for Participatory Medicine, Tucson, Arizona.

Martin Mayer (M)

Innovations and Evidence-Based Medicine, EBSCO Health, Triad Hospitalists, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH