The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Medical Practice Guidelines: Current Activities and Future Directions
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the state of the art in the field of medical practice guidelines, to identify limitations, and to suggest future directions. DESIGN: Informal descriptive survey using a questionnaire administered by telephone, supplemented by comments, by opinions, and by examples solicited from the participating organizations. PARTICIPANTS: Eight prominent organizations representing prototypic approaches to guideline development; these organizations included three medical societies, two health care organizations, two insurers, and one private health benefits management company. RESULTS: Improving the quality of medical care was a stated goal of all eight surveyed organizations. However, their objectives have not been stated in operational terms, reflecting the lesser emphasis placed on methods and means for both implementing guidelines and evaluating their impact on health practices and outcomes. In contrast, several systematic methods for developing guidelines exist. They differ in the stress placed on formal literature reviews, reliance on local as opposed to national experts, and formal methods of group judgment, but no evidence exists on which approaches produce sounder and more usable guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines are being vigorously promoted as a means to improve the effectiveness of the health care system. Current initiatives show both strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the attention now paid to the development of guidelines needs to be matched by attention to implementation strategies and to the scientific evaluation of their effectiveness in real clinical settings. Also, more agreement is needed on acceptable methods for developing guidelines, assessing their content, and evaluating their impact on professional behavior, patient outcomes, and health care costs. Fortunately, several initiatives to bring greater order and quality to this field are under way.
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
Cited by
Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): Updated Treatment Recommendations 2009
Kreyenbuhl, J., Buchanan, R. W., Dickerson, F. B., & Dixon, L. B. (2010) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbp130 · Cited by 499
Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs
BURGERS, J. S. (2003) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31 · Cited by 331
Demsash, A. W., Kalayou, M. H., & Walle, A. D. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05680-z · Cited by 21
“However, it is manual (paper-based) and vigorously promoted as a means to improve the effectiveness of the healthcare system, patient outcomes, and healthcare costs [11].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Audet, A.-M., Greenfield, S., & Field, M.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1990-11-01
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 709-714
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2071353863
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.23
- 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: Medical Practice Guidelines: Current Activities and Future Directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-709
- The paper
- Audet, A.-M., Greenfield, S., & Field, M. (1990). Medical Practice Guidelines: Current Activities and Future Directions. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-709
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.