Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Medical Practice Guidelines: Current Activities and Future Directions

Audet, Anne-Marie, Greenfield, Sheldon, Field, Marilyn·1990·Annals of Internal Medicine

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-709

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.

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

Cited by

See all 365

Metadata

Authors
Audet, A.-M., Greenfield, S., & Field, M.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
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.