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
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.
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
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,322
Evaluating the quality of medical care
DONABEDIAN, A. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x · Cited by 6,102 · cited 1×
“To evaluate effects on quality of care, we used Donabedian’s model, which distinguished the structure, processes and outcomes of care.(20) Structure of care refers to ‘‘human, physical and financial resources that are needed to provide medical care’’ (eg, the presence of spirometry in general practice).”
MethodEffectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies
Grimshaw, J., Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C., Vale, L., Whitty, P., Eccles, M., Matowe, L., Shirran, L., et al. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8060 · Cited by 3,044
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
The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment
Donabedian, A. (1980) · Health Administration Press eBooks · Cited by 1,747
(2003) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.12.1.18 · Cited by 1,446
Clinical practice guidelines : directions for a new program
Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (1990) · Cited by 1,415
Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelines
Shekelle, P. G., Woolf, S. H., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593 · Cited by 1,222
Grol, R., Dalhuijsen, J., Thomas, S., Veld, C. I. ‘., Rutten, G., & Mokkink, H. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858 · Cited by 877
Grimshaw, J., Eccles, M., Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C., & Vale, L. (2006) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-006-0269-7 · Cited by 631
Cited by
Lugtenberg, M., Zegers-van Schaick, J. M., Westert, G. P., & Burgers, J. S. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-54 · Cited by 478
Self-citationMethods of Formal Consensus in Classification/Diagnostic Criteria and Guideline Development
Nair, R., Aggarwal, R., & Khanna, D. (2011) · Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism · doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2010.12.001 · Cited by 438
Squires, J. E., Sullivan, K., Eccles, M. P., Worswick, J., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2014) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6 · Cited by 368
Dhaliwal, R., Cahill, N., Lemieux, M., & Heyland, D. K. (2014) · Nutrition in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1177/0884533613510948 · Cited by 282
Ryan, R. E., Santesso, N., Lowe, D., Hill, S., Grimshaw, J. M., Prictor, M., Kaufman, C., Cowie, G., & Taylor, M. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007768.pub3 · Cited by 273
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.