The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines should be updated to maintain their validity. Our aim was to estimate the length of time before recommendations become outdated. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort design and included recommendations from clinical guidelines developed in the Spanish National Health System clinical guideline program since 2008. We performed a descriptive analysis of references, recommendations and resources used, and a survival analysis of recommendations using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We included 113 recommendations from 4 clinical guidelines with a median of 4 years since the most recent search (range 3.9-4.4 yr). We retrieved 39 136 references (range 3343-14 787) using an exhaustive literature search, 668 of which were related to the recommendations in our sample. We identified 69 (10.3%) key references, corresponding to 25 (22.1%) recommendations that required updating. Ninety-two percent (95% confidence interval 86.9-97.0) of the recommendations were valid 1 year after their development. This probability decreased at 2 (85.7%), 3 (81.3%) and 4 years (77.8%). INTERPRETATION: Recommendations quickly become outdated, with 1 out of 5 recommendations being out of date after 3 years. Waiting more than 3 years to review a guideline is potentially too long.
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
How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis
Shojania, K. G., Sampson, M., Ansari, M. T., Ji, J., Doucette, S., & Moher, D. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179 · Cited by 838
Neuman, M. D., Goldstein, J. N., Cirullo, M. A., & Schwartz, J. S. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.4949 · Cited by 89
Cited by
Murad, M. H. (2017) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.01.001 · Cited by 386
Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations.
Akl, E. A., Meerpohl, J. J., Elliott, J., Kahale, L. A., Schünemann, H. J., Agoritsas, T., Hilton, J., Perron, C., Akl, E., Hodder, R., et al. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009 · Cited by 328
Treatment of Cluster Headache: The American Headache Society Evidence‐Based Guidelines
Robbins, M. S., Starling, A. J., Pringsheim, T. M., Becker, W. J., & Schwedt, T. J. (2016) · Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain · doi:10.1111/head.12866 · Cited by 258
Management of acne: Canadian clinical practice guideline
Asai, Y., Baibergenova, A., Dutil, M., Humphrey, S., Hull, P., Lynde, C., Poulin, Y., Shear, N. H., Tan, J., Toole, J., et al. (2016) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.140665 · Cited by 95
Chen, J. H., Dhaliwal, G., & Yang, D. (2022) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2022.13735 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- García, L. M., Sanabria, A. J., Álvarez, E. G., Trujillo-Martín, M. M., Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, I., Kotzeva, A., Rigau, D., Louro-González, A., Barajas-Nava, L., Campo, P. D. D., Estrada, M.-D., Solà, I., Gracia, J., Salcedo-Fernandez, F., Lawson, J., Haynes, R. B., & Alonso-Coello, P.
- Venue
- Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Publisher
- CMA Joule Inc.
- Published
- 2014-09-08
- Volume
- 186
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1211-1219
- ISSN
- 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
- 1488-2329
- OpenAlex
- W2124597509
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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 validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1503/cmaj.140547
- The paper
- García, L. M., Sanabria, A. J., Álvarez, E. G., Trujillo-Martín, M. M., Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, I., Kotzeva, A., Rigau, D., Louro-González, A., Barajas-Nava, L., Campo, P. D. D., Estrada, M.-D., Solà, I., Gracia, J., Salcedo-Fernandez, F., Lawson, J., Haynes, R. B., & Alonso-Coello, P. (2014). The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.140547
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.
