Detailed Information on Publication Record
2022
An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance
NASIR, Z. H., D. MERTZ, R. NIEUWLAAT, N. SANTESSO, T. LOTFI et. al.Basic information
Original name
An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance
Authors
NASIR, Z. H., D. MERTZ, R. NIEUWLAAT, N. SANTESSO, T. LOTFI, A. MOTILALL, L. MOJA, L. MBUAGBAW, Miloslav KLUGAR (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), A. F. TURGEON, J. L. MATHEW, C. CANELO-AYBAR, K. POTTIE, O. DEWIDAR, M. W. LANGENDAM, A. IORIO, G. E. VIST, J. J. MEERPOHL, S. FLOTTORP, T. KREDO, T. PIGGOTT, M. MATHEWS, A. QASEEM, D. K. CHU, P. TUGWELL, Jitka KLUGAROVÁ (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), H. NELSON, H. HUSSEIN, J. SUVADA, I. NEUMANN and H. J. SCHÜNEMANN (guarantor)
Edition
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, New York, Elsevier, 2022, 0895-4356
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Článek v odborném periodiku
Field of Study
30304 Public and environmental health
Country of publisher
United States of America
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
References:
Impact factor
Impact factor: 7.200
RIV identification code
RIV/00216224:14110/22:00125668
Organization unit
Faculty of Medicine
UT WoS
000808123800005
Keywords in English
COVID-19; Divergence; Discordance; GRADE; Guidelines; Recommendations
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 19/7/2022 08:28, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová
Abstract
V originále
Objective To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by COVID-19 guideline developers catalogued on the “COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization” platform. Study Design and Setting We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgements of strength, direction or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. Results Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements (Cramer’s V = 0.7, Fisher’s exact test; P <0.001). Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. Date of publication, utilized evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. Conclusion More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.