Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines | Guidelines | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Sīnā  I The Cannon of Medicine. Cited by: Smith RD. Avicenna and the Cannon of Medicine: a millennial tribute.  West J Med 1980;133 (4) 367- 370PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
 The first report on Semmelweis' discovery of the cause and prevention of childbed fever. Most important experiences about the etiology of puerperal fevers epidemic in birthing institutions.  Infect Control 1982;3 (6) 478- 479PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Chassin  MRKosecoff  JPark  RE  et al.  Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services? a study of three procedures.  JAMA 1987;258 (18) 2533- 2537PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Field  MJedLohr  KNed Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use.  Washington, DC National Academy Press1992;
5.
Woolf  SH Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine, I. recent developments.  Arch Intern Med 1990;150 (9) 1811- 1818PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Berg  AOAtkins  DTierney  W Clinical practice guidelines in practice and education.  J Gen Intern Med 1997;12 ((Suppl 2)) S25- S33PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Browman  GP Evidence-based clinical practice guideline development: principles, challenges, and accountability to evidence.  J Surg Oncol 2010;101 (1) 1- 2PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Gupta  SBhattacharyya  OKBrouwers  MC  et al.  Canadian Thoracic Society: Presenting a new process for clinical practice guideline production.  Can Respir J 2009;16 (6) e62- e68PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Shaneyfelt  TMCentor  RM Reassessment of clinical practice guidelines: go gently into that good night.  JAMA 2009;301 (8) 868- 869PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Tricoci  PAllen  JMKramer  JMCaliff  RMSmith  SC  Jr Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines.  JAMA 2009;301 (8) 831- 841PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Kish  MAInfectious Diseases Society of America, Guide to development of practice guidelines.  Clin Infect Dis 2001;32 (6) 851- 854PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Field  MJedLohr  KNed Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program.  Washington, DC National Academy Press1990;
13.
Gross  PABarrett  TLDellinger  EP  et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America, Purpose of quality standards for infectious diseases.  Clin Infect Dis 1994;18 (3) 421PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, The periodic health examination.  Can Med Assoc J 1979;121 (9) 1193- 1254PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
 GRADE Working Group Web site. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm. Accessed February 26, 2010
16.
Atkins  DEccles  MFlottorp  S  et al. GRADE Working Group, Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches.  BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4 (1) 38PubMed10.1186/1472-6963-4-38Google Scholar
17.
Guyatt  GHOxman  ADVist  GE  et al. GRADE Working Group, GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.  BMJ 2008;336 (7650) 924- 926PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Jaeschke  RGuyatt  GHDellinger  P  et al. GRADE Working Group, Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive.  BMJ 2008;337a744PubMed10.1136/bmj.a744Google Scholar
19.
Atkins  DBest  DBriss  PA  et al. GRADE Working Group, Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.  BMJ 2004;328 (7454) 1490PubMed10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490Google Scholar
20.
World Health Organization, Rapid advice: antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents. http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/advice/en/index.html. 2009. Accessed October 16, 2010
21.
Gross  PA Practice guidelines for infectious diseases: rationale for a work in progress.  Clin Infect Dis 1998;26 (5) 1037- 1041PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Hayward  RSWilson  MCTunis  SRBass  EBGuyatt  GEvidence-Based Medicine Working Group, Users' Guides to the Medical Literature, VIII. how to use clinical practice guidelines: A. are the recommendations valid?  JAMA 1995;274 (7) 570- 574PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Wilson  MCHayward  RSTunis  SRBass  EBGuyatt  GEvidence-Based Medicine Working Group, Users' Guides to the Medical Literature, VIII. how to use clinical practice guidelines: B. what are the recommendations and will they help you in caring for your patients?  JAMA 1995;274 (20) 1630- 1632PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Shaneyfelt  TMMayo-Smith  MFRothwangl  J Are guidelines following guidelines? the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature.  JAMA 1999;281 (20) 1900- 1905PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
de Lacey  GRecord  CWade  J How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals?  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;291 (6499) 884- 886PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Siebers  RHolt  S Accuracy of references in five leading medical journals.  Lancet 2000;356 (9239) 1445PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Disappointed
    Paul Schulz, MD | Norton Healthcare
    I hope we would agree that improved antimicrobial stewardship is imperative due to rapidly developing resistance and the lack of new therapies being developed. One of the biggest barriers to the success of antimicrobial stewardship programs is poor prescribing by providers that do not utilize guidelines (or evidence) and site "studies" such as this one when challenged. A guideline should never be used as "the sole source guiding patient care decisions" but appropriate utilization of a guideline based on available evidence and a group of experts opinion is much better than the non- evidence based, individual non-expert opinions and prescribing that has created the resistance problem we currently face.

    Conflict of Interest: None declared
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    January 10, 2011

    Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines

    Author Affiliations

    Author Affiliations: Division of Infectious Diseases and HIV Medicine, Department of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(1):18-22. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.482
    Abstract

    Background  Clinical practice guidelines are developed to assist in patient care. Physicians may assume that following such guidelines means practicing evidence-based medicine. However, the quality of supporting literature can vary greatly.

    Methods  We analyzed the strength of recommendation and overall quality of evidence behind 41 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines released between January 1994 and May 2010. Individual recommendations were classified based on their strength of recommendation (levels A through C) and quality of evidence (levels I through III). Guidelines not following this format were excluded from further analysis. Evolution of IDSA guidelines was assessed by comparing 5 recently updated guidelines with their earlier versions.

    Results  In the 41 analyzed guidelines, 4218 individual recommendations were found and tabulated. Fourteen percent of the recommendations were classified as level I, 31% as level II, and 55% as level III evidence. Among class A recommendations (good evidence for support), 23% were level I (≥1 randomized controlled trial) and 37% were based on expert opinion only (level III). Updated guidelines expanded the absolute number of individual recommendations substantially. However, few were due to a sizable increase in level I evidence; most additional recommendations had level II and III evidence.

    Conclusions  More than half of the current recommendations of the IDSA are based on level III evidence only. Until more data from well-designed controlled clinical trials become available, physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions.

    ×