Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical guidelines aim to improve the quality of care. In The Netherlands, considerable time and effort have been invested in the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines since the 1990s. Thus far, no reviews are available on their effectiveness. The primary aim of this article was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines in improving the quality of care. METHODS: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effects of Dutch evidence-based guidelines on both the process and structure of care and patient outcomes was conducted. The electronic databases Medline and Embase (1990-2007) and relevant scientific journals were searched. Studies were only selected if they included a controlled trial, an interrupted time series design or a before and after design. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included. In 17 of 19 studies that measured the effects on the process or structure of care, significant improvements were reported. Thirteen of these studies reported improvement with respect to some of the recommendations studied. In addition, the size of the observed effects varied largely across the recommendations within guidelines. Six of nine studies that measured patient health outcomes showed significant but small improvements as a result of the use of clinical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines can be effective in improving the process and structure of care. The effects of guidelines on patient health outcomes were studied far less and data are less convincing. The high level of variation in effects across recommendations suggests that implementation strategies tailored to individual recommendations within the guideline are needed to establish relevant improvements in healthcare. Moreover, the results highlight the need for well-designed studies focusing on the level of the recommendations to determine which factors influence guideline utilisation and improved patient outcomes.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/qshc.2008.028043

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 478

Metadata

Authors
Lugtenberg, M., Burgers, J. S., & Westert, G. P.
Venue
Quality and Safety in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-10-01
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
385-392
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2161511809
Cited by
478
References
51
FWCI
2.94
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: Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qshc.2008.028043
The paper
Lugtenberg, M., Burgers, J. S., & Westert, G. P. (2009). Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2008.028043

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.