The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Practice Guidelines: How Quickly Do Guidelines Become Outdated?
Abstract
CONTEXT: Practice guidelines need to be up-to-date to be useful to clinicians. No published methods are available for assessing whether existing practice guidelines are still valid, nor does any empirical information exist regarding how often such assessments need to be made. OBJECTIVES: To assess the current validity of 17 clinical practice guidelines published by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that are still in circulation, and to use this information to estimate how quickly guidelines become obsolete. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed criteria for defining when a guideline needs updating, mailed surveys to members of the original AHRQ guideline panels (n = 170; response rate, 71%), and searched the literature for evidence through March 2000 (n = 6994 titles yielding 173 articles plus 159 new guidelines on the same topics). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of new evidence calling for a major, minor, or no update of the 17 guidelines; survival analysis of the rate at which guidelines became outdated. RESULTS: For 7 guidelines, new evidence and expert judgment indicated that a major update is required; 6 were found to be in need of a minor update; 3 were judged as still valid; and for 1 guideline, we could reach no conclusion. Survival analysis indicated that about half the guidelines were outdated in 5.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0-6.6 years). The point at which no more than 90% of the guidelines were still valid was 3.6 years (95% CI, 2.6-4.6 years). CONCLUSIONS: More than three quarters of the AHRQ guidelines need updating. As a general rule, guidelines should be reassessed for validity every 3 years.
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
Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model
Therneau, T. M., & Grambsch, P. M. (2000) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3294-8 · Cited by 8,674
Cited by
Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos)
Yokoe, M., Hata, J., Takada, T., Strasberg, S. M., Asbun, H. J., Wakabayashi, G., Kozaka, K., Endo, I., Deziel, D. J., Miura, F., et al. (2018) · Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences · doi:10.1002/jhbp.515 · Cited by 1,535
How can we achieve and maintain high-quality performance of health workers in low-resource settings?
Rowe, A. K., de Savigny, D., Lanata, C. F., & Victora, C. G. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67028-6 · Cited by 1,045
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
The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): Updated Treatment Recommendations 2009
Kreyenbuhl, J., Buchanan, R. W., Dickerson, F. B., & Dixon, L. B. (2010) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbp130 · Cited by 499
When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist
Garner, P., Hopewell, S., Chandler, J., MacLehose, H., Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., Beyene, J., Chang, S., Churchill, R., Dearness, K., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i3507 · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- Shekelle, P. G., Ortiz, E., Rhodes, S., Morton, S. C., Eccles, M. P., Grimshaw, J. M., & Woolf, S. H.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2001-09-26
- Volume
- 286
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1461
- ISSN
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2047330557
- Cited by
- 604
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 29.15
- 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: Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Practice Guidelines: How Quickly Do Guidelines Become Outdated? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.286.12.1461
- The paper
- Shekelle, P. G., Ortiz, E., Rhodes, S., Morton, S. C., Eccles, M. P., Grimshaw, J. M., & Woolf, S. H. (2001). Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Practice Guidelines: How Quickly Do Guidelines Become Outdated? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.12.1461
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.