12227133

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/12227133

Download in:

Switch to

Custom View

Named Graph Language Inference

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
Predicate	Object
rdf:type	pubmed:Citation
lifeskim:mentions	umls-concept:C0011849, umls-concept:C0034037, umls-concept:C0038137, umls-concept:C0162791, umls-concept:C0175675, umls-concept:C0282423, umls-concept:C0936005, umls-concept:C1510802, umls-concept:C1527148, umls-concept:C1704324
pubmed:issue	3
pubmed:dateCreated	2002-9-13
pubmed:abstractText	There are multiple practice guidelines published pertaining to diabetes care. Experts have formulated methodologic standards of guideline formulation. To determine whether practice guidelines pertaining to diabetes and published in peer-reviewed publications and the Internet adhered to established methodologic standards of guideline development. We identified all guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published between 1980 and 2000 using a computerized search of Medline, the Practice Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement Web site, and a global internet search engine. We used a previously validated 25-item assessment tool to determine guideline adherence to methodologic standards in three categories: guideline development and format, identification and summary of evidence, and formulation of recommendations. We conducted a multivariable regression analysis to determine the influence of guideline author, publishing medium, year of publication, and guidelines length on adherence to methodologic standards of guideline development. We evaluated 43 guidelines: 33% published on the Internet, 66% in peer-reviewed journals; 51% published by organizations, and 49% by individual experts. Of a maximum of 25 methodologic standards, the number of standards adhered by a guideline was 9 (range, 2 to 19). Mean proportion (SD) of guidelines that adhered to methodologic standards on guideline development and format was 48% (28); on identification and summary of evidence, 21% (22); and on the formulation of recommendations, 36% (27). Longer guidelines had greater adherence to methodologic standards (P < 0.0001). Guidelines pertaining to diabetes care published on the internet and in peer-reviewed publications do not meet most methodologic standards of guideline development.
pubmed:language	eng
pubmed:journal	http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/journal/8800104
pubmed:citationSubset	IM
pubmed:status	MEDLINE
pubmed:month	Sep
pubmed:issn	0889-8529
pubmed:author	pubmed-author:EVIDENS Groups, pubmed-author:Harker-MurrayPaulP, pubmed-author:MontoriVictor MVM, pubmed-author:SicaGabrielG, pubmed-author:SmithSteven ASA
pubmed:issnType	Print
pubmed:volume	31
pubmed:owner	NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete	Y
pubmed:pagination	819-28
pubmed:dateRevised	2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading	pubmed-meshheading:12227133-Diabetes Mellitus, pubmed-meshheading:12227133-Endocrinology, pubmed-meshheading:12227133-Guideline Adherence, pubmed-meshheading:12227133-Humans, pubmed-meshheading:12227133-Practice Guidelines as Topic
pubmed:year	2002
pubmed:articleTitle	Adherence of published diabetes mellitus practice guidelines to methodologic standards of guideline development.
pubmed:affiliation	Mayo Medical School, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
pubmed:publicationType	Journal Article, Review, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't