Cited by 177Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and EducationDelphi Technique in Research

Evaluation and adaptation of clinical practice guidelines

Open access
Graham, Ian D, Harrison, Margaret B·2005·Evidence-Based Nursing

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines are “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”1 They are intended to offer concise instructions on how to provide healthcare services.2 The most important benefit of clinical practice guidelines is their potential to improve both the quality or process of care and patient outcomes.3 Increasingly, clinicians and clinical managers must choose from numerous, sometimes differing, and occasionally contradictory, guidelines.4 This situation is further complicated by concerns about the quality of available guidelines.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 Indeed, adoption of guidelines of questionable validity can lead to the use of ineffective interventions, inefficient use of scarce resources, and perhaps most importantly, harm to patients.12,13 Determining which guidelines are quality products worthy of adoption can be daunting. Every effort should be made to identify existing guidelines that have been rigorously developed and to adopt or adapt them for local use.12 However, organisations and clinicians should scrutinise the methods by which the guidelines were developed, as well as the content and utility of the recommendations. Even guidelines developed by prominent professional groups or government bodies should not be exempt from this scrutiny as it has been shown that these guidelines may be of substandard quality.10 The Practice Guidelines Evaluation and Adaptation Cycle14,15 is a framework for organising and making decisions about which high quality guidelines to adopt (figure). Although the cycle was originally intended for use by organisations and groups wanting to implement best practice, most steps of the process are also helpful in guiding evaluation of guidelines by individual clinicians. This Users’ guide will describe strategies for identifying, critically appraising, and adopting or adapting guidelines for local use.

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 · 10.1136/ebn.8.3.68

Cites

24 of 24 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ evidencebasednursing.com EBN Volume 8 July 2005 on July 22, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebn.bmj.com/ Evid Based Nurs: first published as 10.1136/ebn.8.3.68 on 28 June 2005. Downloaded from · DOI
  2. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al. BMJ 1999;318:527-30.
  3. Grimshaw J, Freemantle N, Wallace S, et al. Qual Health Care 1995;4:55-64.
  4. 4 Lewis SJ. CMAJ 2001;165:180-1.
  5. Littlejohns P, Cluzeau F, Bale R, et al. Br J Gen Pract 1999;49:205-10.
  6. Sudlow M, Thomson R. Qual Health Care 1997;6:60-1.
  7. Varonen H, Ma ¨kela ¨M. Qual Health Care 1997;6:75-9.
  8. Ward JE, Grieco V. Med J Aust 1996;165:574-6.
  9. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. JAMA 1999;281:1900-5.
  10. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A, et al. Lancet 2000;355:103-6.
  11. Graham ID, Beardall S, Carter AO, et al. CMAJ 2001;165:157-63.
  12. Feder G, Eccles M, Grol R, et al. BMJ 1999;318:728-30.
  13. Woolf SH, George JN. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2000;14:761-84.
  14. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Brouwers M, et al. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2002;31:599-611.
  15. Graham ID, Calder LA, He ´bert PC, et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:1024-38.
  16. AGREE Collaboration. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2003;12:18-23.
  17. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, et al. JAMA 2001;286:1461-7.
  18. Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, et al. BMJ 2001;323:155-7.
  19. evidencebasednursing.com EBN Volume 8 July 2005 on July 22, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://ebn.bmj.com/ Evid Based Nurs: first published as 10.1136/ebn.8.3.68 on 28 June 2005. Downloaded from · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Graham, I. D., & Harrison, M. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Venue
Evidence-Based Nursing
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-06-28
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
68-72
ISSN
  • 1367-6539 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-9618
OpenAlex
W1968468936
Cited by
177
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence-Based Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
guideline evaluation, guideline adaptation, critical appraisal, guideline adoption, guideline quality, guideline development methods, guideline implementation, nursing practice
MeSH terms
Practice Patterns, Physicians', Practice Guidelines as Topic

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