Del conocimiento científico de la investigación clínica a la cabecera del enfermo: las guías de práctica clínica y su implementación

Agència d'Avaluació de Tecnologia i Recerca Mèdiques. Barcelona. España
Gaceta Sanitaria (Impact Factor: 1.19). 08/2004; 18(4):326–334. DOI: 10.1016/S0213-9111(04)72020-8


Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are targeted at health professionals and patients providing information for decision-making. They are aimed at reducing variations in medical practice in order to guarantee an optimum level of quality and improve health care.CPG are based on systematic reviews of biomedical literature and they recommend different clinical intervention strategies depending on the quality of scientific evidence on which they are based. However, we must bear in mind that scientific knowledge is only one of the elements that influence medical practice. Thus, it is not easy neither to recommend an intervention strategy for a specific circumstance (reality) from what has been studied in some rather ideal conditions (randomized controlled trial), nor to translate the context-dependent research evidence -effectiveness or cost-effectiveness studies-into a recommendation. These difficulties will be always present, as each patient (and his/her circumstances) is different from the others; but they can be lessened if more research is carried out to reduce uncertainty in clinical decision making.Finally, another difficulty that should be mentioned is that of CPG implementation, and in order to succeed in it, there is still much left to do in the health sciences field. Nevertheless, if there is not a good product to implement, the strategies used to do it will not be very helpful. Thus, we need to focus our efforts on the development of high quality CPG.

Download full-text


Available from: Marta Aymerich, Jan 02, 2014
1 Follower
26 Reads
  • Source
    • "However, the increase in number of CPGs available has also been accompanied by recommendations that do not always coincide, contributing to confusion amongst professionals and lack of guideline uptake. Consequently, Spain is also placing emphasis on CPG quality and on the different CPG appraisal methods and instruments [1-3]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The GRADE method represents a new approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in the preparation of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). In the context of a pilot study to assess the implementability of the system in Spain, we considered it relevant to gain an insight into the significance of the perceptions and attitudes expressed by the actual experts participating in the system try-out. Qualitative research with an ethnographic approach, through non-participant observation and focus groups within the context of a consensus workshop in which 19 CPG experts participated to evaluate the GRADE proposal using 12 evidence tables taken from hypertension, asthma and arthritis CPGs. The interventions were recorded, under a guarantee of confidentiality. The transcriptions and field notes were analyzed, based on a sociological discourse analysis model, and the provisional findings were re-sent to participants in order to improve their validity. 1) Certain problems over procedure and terminology hindered the acceptance of this new method as a common reference system for the preparation of CPGs. 2) A greater closeness to clinical practice was accompanied by concerns over value judgments and subjectivity, with a demand for greater explicitness in the consensus process. 3) The type of "evidence" on which the guidelines are based, how and by whom the evidence is prepared, and what the role of the different actors should be, all constitute unresolved concerns in the CPG preparation and implementation processes. 4) The grading process is not neutral: professional background, prior experience and the degree of leadership all condition the participants' input and interactions. The findings obtained allow the quantitative evaluation to be better interpreted and, in turn, go beyond the particularities of the GRADE method. Adaptation to the complexities of clinical practice, the need for carefully designed multi-disciplinary work and the reflexivity present in the CPG preparation process, all represent lines of debate that are necessary to improve the CPG quality in the Spanish health care sector.
    BMC Health Services Research 02/2006; 6(1):138. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-6-138 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Cochrane Collaboration provides growing and readily accessible resources to help ensure that medical decision-making is based on detailed, methodical, and up-to-date reviews of the best available evidence. We analyzed systematic reviews in the field of pediatric cardiology published by the Cochrane Collaboration's 50 Collaborative Review Groups. We found a total of 20 systematic reviews: 13 published by the Cochrane Neonatal Group, 6 by the Cochrane Heart Group, and 1 by the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Disease Group. Systematic reviews in pediatric cardiology appear infrequently. They only concern evidence-based decision-making in the therapeutic management of patent ductus arteriosus and arterial hypotension in preterm infants, and in the management of children with Kawasaki disease. The quality of the clinical trials contained in the systematic reviews of acute rheumatic fever or obesity in children is limited. Consequently, the reviewers’ conclusions provide an inadequate basis for inferring probable effects in clinical practice. In pediatric cardiology, many therapies continue to be used without supportive evidence. We found no systematic reviews of important cardiologic topics in childhood such as heart failure, shock, hypertension, congenital cardiopathy, and arrhythmia. Clinical practice guidelines complement systematic reviews, which can recommend only strategies that are supported by strong evidence or suggest further research when scientific evidence is inadequate.
    Revista Espa de Cardiologia 09/2005; 58(9):1093–1106. DOI:10.1157/13078555 · 3.79 Impact Factor
Show more