Cited by 908Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and EducationCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics

Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines.

Tricoci, Pierluigi·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The joint cardiovascular practice guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have become important documents for guiding cardiology practice and establishing benchmarks for quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines and the distribution of recommendations across classes of recommendations and levels of evidence. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Data from all ACC/AHA practice guidelines issued from 1984 to September 2008 were abstracted by personnel in the ACC Science and Quality Division. Fifty-three guidelines on 22 topics, including a total of 7196 recommendations, were abstracted. DATA EXTRACTION: The number of recommendations and the distribution of classes of recommendation (I, II, and III) and levels of evidence (A, B, and C) were determined. The subset of guidelines that were current as of September 2008 was evaluated to describe changes in recommendations between the first and current versions as well as patterns in levels of evidence used in the current versions. RESULTS: Among guidelines with at least 1 revision or update by September 2008, the number of recommendations increased from 1330 to 1973 (+48%) from the first to the current version, with the largest increase observed in use of class II recommendations. Considering the 16 current guidelines reporting levels of evidence, only 314 recommendations of 2711 total are classified as level of evidence A (median, 11%), whereas 1246 (median, 48%) are level of evidence C. Level of evidence significantly varies across categories of guidelines (disease, intervention, or diagnostic) and across individual guidelines. Recommendations with level of evidence A are mostly concentrated in class I, but only 245 of 1305 class I recommendations have level of evidence A (median, 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations issued in current ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinion. The proportion of recommendations for which there is no conclusive evidence is also growing. These findings highlight the need to improve the process of writing guidelines and to expand the evidence base from which clinical practice guidelines are derived.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.205

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tricoci, P.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Tricoci, Pierluigi
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-02-25
Volume
301
Issue
8
Pages
831
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2077033046
Cited by
908
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 96
FWCI
107.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U18 HS010548)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Keywords
cardiovascular guidelines, level of evidence, guideline revision, evidence base, expert opinion, guideline development
MeSH terms
Cardiology, Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Societies, Medical, United States, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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