Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 440

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation.

Browman, G P, Levine, M N, Mohide, E A, Hayward, R S, Pritchard, K I, Gafni, A, Laupacis, A·1995·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a conceptual tool for the systematic development of cancer treatment practice guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The guidelines development tool, the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, was derived from observing an evidence-based practice guidelines initiative at a comprehensive cancer center in Ontario, Canada, and from a literature review that uncovered barriers to guidelines development and implementation. Based on the literature findings and direct observations of how clinicians struggled with evidence-based guidelines development, we evolved a framework to incorporate clinical and administrative factors (eg, costs) into evidence-based guidelines. Use of the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle is illustrated with a clinical example (the use of adjuvant systemic therapy in good-risk, node-negative premenopausal breast cancer patients). RESULTS: The result is the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, which consists of eight sequential steps, from topic selection to policy formulation. Independent validation of guidelines is included. The cycle products are the evidence-based recommendation, the practice guideline, and the practice policy. The main features of the cycle are emphasis on scientific evidence, acknowledgment of the roles of clinical experience and nonclinical (administrative) factors through consensus, and explicit separation of clinical and cost considerations in guidelines development. Twenty guidelines are currently in development. CONCLUSION: Attention to the barriers of guidelines development and the sociocultural nature of clinical practice, and respect for clinical experience, can lead to improved strategies for guidelines 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.1995.13.2.502

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 440

Metadata

Authors
Browman, G. P., Levine, M. N., Mohide, E. A., Hayward, R. S., Pritchard, K. I., Gafni, A., & Laupacis, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1995-02
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
502-512
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2154346936
Cited by
440
References
21
FWCI
12.61
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: The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1995.13.2.502
The paper
Browman, G. P., Levine, M. N., Mohide, E. A., Hayward, R. S., Pritchard, K. I., Gafni, A., & Laupacis, A. (1995). The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.2.502

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.