The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe systematically the structures and working methods of guideline programs. DESIGN: Descriptive survey using a questionnaire with 32 items based on a framework derived from the literature. Answers were tabulated and checked by participants. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Key informants of 18 prominent guideline organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and nine European countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: History, aims, methodology, products and deliveries, implementation, evaluation, procedure for updating guidelines, and future plans. RESULTS: Most guideline programs were established to improve the quality and effectiveness of health care. Most use electronic databases to collect evidence and systematic reviews to analyze the evidence. Consensus procedures are used when evidence is lacking. All guidelines are reviewed before publication. Authorization is commonly used to endorse guidelines. All guidelines are furnished with tools for application and the Internet is widely used for dissemination. Implementation strategies vary among different organizations, with larger organizations leaving this to local organizations. Almost all have a quality assurance system for their programs. Half of the programs do not have formal update procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs. Recent programs are benefiting from the methodology created by long-standing programs. Differences are found in the emphasis on dissemination and implementation, probably due to differences in health care systems and political and cultural factors. International collaboration should be encouraged to improve guideline methodology and to globalize the collection and analysis of evidence needed for guideline development.
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
Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations
Grimshaw, J. M., & Russell, I. T. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n · Cited by 2,770
Clinical guidelines: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines
Woolf, S. H., Grol, R., Hutchinson, A., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527 · Cited by 2,548
Bero, L. A., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J. M., Harvey, E., Oxman, A. D., & Thomson, M. A. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465 · Cited by 2,396
Clinical practice guidelines : directions for a new program
Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (1990) · Cited by 1,415
Bulger, R. E. (1992) · Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal · doi:10.1353/ken.0.0102 · Cited by 992
Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use
(1992) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/1863 · Cited by 915
Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions
(1999) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0741-5214(99)70404-0 · Cited by 608
Evidence-Based Implementation of Evidence-Based Medicine
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (1999) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement · doi:10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30464-3 · Cited by 421
Practice Guidelines, a New Reality in Medicine: II. Methods of Developing Guidelines
Woolf, S. H. (1992) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1992.00400170036007 · Cited by 407
Medical Practice Guidelines: Current Activities and Future Directions
Audet, A.-M., Greenfield, S., & Field, M. (1990) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-709 · Cited by 365
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
Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review
Lugtenberg, M., Burgers, J. S., & Westert, G. P. (2009) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.028043 · Cited by 478
Self-citationUse of evidence in WHO recommendations
Oxman, A. D., Lavis, J. N., & Fretheim, A. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60675-8 · Cited by 287
Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine
Cambrosio, A., Keating, P., Schlich, T., & Weisz, G. (2006) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.12.007 · Cited by 258
Boivin, A., Currie, K., Fervers, B., Gracia, J., James, M., Marshall, C., Sakala, C., Sanger, S., Strid, J., Thomas, V., et al. (2010) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.034835 · Cited by 201
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- BURGERS, J. S.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-02-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-45
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W2162786082
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 14.84
- 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: Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31
- The paper
- BURGERS, J. S. (2003). Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31
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.