The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Practice Guidelines, a New Reality in Medicine: II. Methods of Developing Guidelines
Abstract
Current methods for developing practice guidelines include informal consensus development, formal consensus development, evidence-based guideline development, and explicit guideline development. Informal consensus development is the oldest and most common approach, but guidelines produced in this manner are often of poor quality and lack adequate documentation of methods. Formal consensus development uses a systematic approach to assess expert opinion and to reach agreement on recommendations. Evidence-based guideline development links recommendations directly to scientific evidence of effectiveness; rules of evidence are emphasized over expert opinion in making recommendations. Explicit guideline development clarifies the rationale by specifying the potential benefits, harms, and costs of available interventions; estimating the possibility of the outcomes; and comparing the desirability of the outcomes based on patient preferences. Steps in the development of practice guidelines include introductory decisions (selection of topic and panel members, clarification of purpose); assessments of clinical appropriateness (review of scientific evidence and expert opinion); assessment of public policy issues (resource limitations, feasibility issues); and guideline document development and evaluation (drafting of document, peer review, and pretesting).
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
Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.74.9.979 · Cited by 2,089
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Guidelines International Network: Toward International Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines
Qaseem, A., Forland, F., Macbeth, F., Ollenschläger, G., Phillips, S., van der Wees, P., & for the Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network* (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009 · Cited by 902
Grol, R., Dalhuijsen, J., Thomas, S., Veld, C. I. ‘., Rutten, G., & Mokkink, H. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858 · Cited by 877
IAP Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Acute Pancreatitis
Uhl, W. H., Warshaw, A. L., IMRIE, C. W., Bassi, C., McKay, C. J., Lankisch, P. G., Carter, R., Magno, E. D., Banks, P. A., Whitcomb, D. C., et al. (2002) · Pancreatology · doi:10.1159/000071269 · Cited by 773
Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT Group* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008-w1 · Cited by 523
Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs
BURGERS, J. S. (2003) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Woolf, S. H.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1992-05-01
- Volume
- 152
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 946
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2052525713
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.41
- 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: Practice Guidelines, a New Reality in Medicine: II. Methods of Developing Guidelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.1992.00400170036007
- The paper
- Woolf, S. H. (1992). Practice Guidelines, a New Reality in Medicine: II. Methods of Developing Guidelines. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1992.00400170036007
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.