The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Failure of Clinical Practice Guidelines to Meet Institute of Medicine Standards: Two More Decades of Little, If Any, Progress
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In March 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a new set of standards for clinical practice guidelines intended to enhance the quality of guidelines being produced. To our knowledge, no systematic review of adherence to such standards has been undertaken since one published over a decade ago. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened 130 guidelines selected at random from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) website for compliance with 18 of 25 IOM standards. RESULTS: The overall median number (percentage) of IOM standards satisfied (out of 18) was 8 (44.4%), with an interquartile range of 6.5 (36.1%) to 9.5 (52.8%). Fewer than half of the guidelines surveyed met more than 50% of the IOM standards. Barely a third of the guidelines produced by subspecialty societies satisfied more than 50% of the IOM standards surveyed. Information on conflicts of interest (COIs) was given in fewer than half of the guidelines surveyed. Of those guidelines including such information, COIs were present in over two-thirds of committee chairpersons (71.4%) and 90.5% of co-chairpersons. Except for US government agency–produced guidelines, criteria used to select committee members and the selection process were rarely described. Committees developing guidelines rarely included an information scientist or a patient or patient representative. Non-English literature, unpublished data, and/or abstracts were rarely considered in developing guidelines; differences of opinion among committee members generally were not aired in guidelines; and benefits of recommendations were enumerated more often than potential harms. Guidelines published from 2006 through 2011 varied little with regard to average number of IOM standards satisfied. CONCLUSION: Analysis of a random sample of clinical practice guidelines archived on the NGC website as of June 2011 demonstrated poor compliance with IOM standards, with little if any improvement over the past 2 decades.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.716 · Cited by 2,581
How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis
Shojania, K. G., Sampson, M., Ansari, M. T., Ji, J., Doucette, S., & Moher, D. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179 · Cited by 838
Cited by
Alonso-Coello, P., Schünemann, H. J., Moberg, J., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Akl, E. A., Davoli, M., Treweek, S., Mustafa, R. A., Rada, G., Rosenbaum, S., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i2016 · Cited by 1,317
Hoffmann-Eßer, W., Siering, U., Neugebauer, E. A. M., Brockhaus, A. C., Lampert, U., & Eikermann, M. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174831 · Cited by 171
The Evolution and Future of ACC/AHA Clinical Practice Guidelines: A 30-Year Journey
Jacobs, A. K., Anderson, J. L., & Halperin, J. L. (2014) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.001 · Cited by 109
Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
Bush, S. H., Marchington, K. L., Agar, M., Davis, D. H. J., Sikora, L., & Tsang, T. W. Y. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013809 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Kung, J., Miller, R. R., & Mackowiak, P. A.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2012-11-26
- Volume
- 172
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1628
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064955249
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Failure of Clinical Practice Guidelines to Meet Institute of Medicine Standards: Two More Decades of Little, If Any, Progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.56
- The paper
- Kung, J., Miller, R. R., & Mackowiak, P. A. (2012). Failure of Clinical Practice Guidelines to Meet Institute of Medicine Standards: Two More Decades of Little, If Any, Progress. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.56
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.