Cited by 89Clinical practice guidelines implementationCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsHealth Sciences Research and Education

Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Open access
Neuman, Mark D., Goldstein, Jennifer N., Cirullo, Michael A., Schwartz, J. Sanford·2014·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time. OBJECTIVE: To characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Textual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P < .001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P = .001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P < .001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P = .005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2014.4949

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neuman, M. D., Goldstein, J. N., Cirullo, M. A., & Schwartz, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2014-05-28
Volume
311
Issue
20
Pages
2092
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2133037169
Cited by
89
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 7
FWCI
15.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (K08AG043548)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
clinical practice guideline recommendations, guideline revision, level of evidence, ACC/AHA guidelines, cardiology, evidence-based medicine, observational data, expert opinion, guideline adherence, guideline appropriateness, guideline applicability
MeSH terms
American Heart Association, Cardiology, Humans, Societies, Medical, Time Factors, United States, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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