CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 287Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of evidence in WHO recommendations

Open access
Oxman, Andrew D, Lavis, John N, Fretheim, Atle·2007·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60675-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background WHO regulations, dating back to 1951, emphasise the role of expert opinion in the development of recommendations. However, the organisation's guidelines, approved in 2003, emphasise the use of systematic reviews for evidence of effects, processes that allow for the explicit incorporation of other types of information (including values), and evidence-informed dissemination and implementation strategies. We examined the use of evidence, particularly evidence of effects, in recommendations developed by WHO departments.Methods We interviewed department directors (or their delegates) at WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, and reviewed a sample of the recommendation-containing reports that were discussed in the interviews (as well as related background documentation). Two individuals independently analysed the interviews and reviewed key features of the reports and background documentation.Findings Systematic reviews and concise summaries of findings are rarely used for developing recommendations. Instead, processes usually rely heavily on experts in a particular specialty, rather than representatives of those who will have to live with the recommendations or on experts in particular methodological areas.Interpretation Progress in the development, adaptation, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations for member states will need leadership, the resources necessary for WHO to undertake these processes in a transparent and defensible way, and close attention to the current and emerging research literature related to these processes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60675-8

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Gove, 1997, Integrated management of childhood illness by outpatient health workers: technical basis and overview, Bull World Health Organ, 75, 7
  2. Burgers, 2003, Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs, Int J Qual Health Care, 15, 31, 10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 287

Related

Metadata

Authors
Oxman, A. D., Lavis, J. N., & Fretheim, A.
Affiliations
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Oxman, Andrew D
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-06
Volume
369
Issue
9576
Pages
1883-1889
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60675-8
OpenAlex
W2112003434
Cited by
287
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 14
FWCI
23.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (acceptedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
World Health Organization, health advice, evidence use, systematic reviews, expert opinion, evidence-informed decision-making, WHO guidelines, dissemination and implementation
MeSH terms
Expert Testimony, Health Planning Guidelines, Health Policy, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Physician Executives, World Health Organization, 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