Article

A summary of the methods that the National Clinical Guideline Centre uses to produce clinical guidelines for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

National Clinical Guideline Centre, London, UK.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 06/2011; 154(11):752-7. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The National Clinical Guideline Centre develops evidence-based clinical guidelines on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom. These guidelines are developed for the National Health Service in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland and establish recommendations on best practice. The authors summarize the main methods used in development, how evidence from systematic reviews is interpreted to form recommendations, who is involved in the process, and the main outputs that are published.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
55 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the study is to assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Rheumatology International (RI) by using three types of analytical tools. MEDLINE was used to extract RCTs from original articles published in the RI from 1981 (vol. 1) to 2012 (vol. 32). The relationship between the number of articles and RCTs with time and that between various factors and the quality of RCTs were analyzed. To analyze the methodological quality of the RCTs, the time period was divided into several sections and three tools were applied (e.g., the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool). The number of RCTs published gradually increased with time significantly (p < 0.001). The differences in RCT quality scores by each method in the publication years evaluated were not statistically significant, but RCTs that included descriptions of allocation concealment methods had received institutional review board (IRB) approval, and that conducted in the multicenter had significantly higher-quality scores than other studies. In conclusion, although the number of RCTs published in RI since its publishing in 1981 has increased with time, but no qualitative improvement of RCT was observed over time. It is necessary to improve the reporting of concealment of allocation, generation of randomization sequences, design of blinded studies, and obtaining IRB approval, all of which are criteria of high-quality RCTs.
    Rheumatology International 02/2014; 34(9). · 1.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    BMJ (online) 06/2014; 348:g3725. · 16.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Clinical guidelines are an integral part of healthcare. Whilst much progress has been made in ensuring that guidelines are well developed and disseminated, the gap between routine clinical practice and current guidelines often remains wide. A key reason for this gap is that implementation of guidelines typically requires a change in the behaviour of healthcare professionals ¿ but the behaviour change component is often overlooked. We adopted the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach for supporting behaviour change required for the uptake of a national patient safety guideline to reduce the risk of feeding through misplaced nasogastric tubes.Methods The TDFI approach was used in a pre-post study in three NHS hospitals with a fourth acting as a control (with usual care and no TDFI). The target behavior identified for change was to increase the use of pH testing as the first line method for checking the position of a nasogastric tube. Repeat audits were undertaken in each hospital following intervention implementation. We used Zou¿s modified Poisson regression approach with robust standard errors to estimate risk ratios for the use of pH testing. The projected return on investment (ROI) was also calculated.ResultsFollowing intervention implementation, the use of pH first line increased significantly across intervention hospitals [risk ratio (95%CI) ranged from 3.1 (1.14 to8.43) p¿<¿.05, to 8.14 (3.06 to21.67) p¿<¿.001] compared to the control hospital, which remained unchanged [risk ratio (CI)¿=¿.77 (.47-1.26) p¿=¿.296]. The estimated savings and costs in the first year were £2.56 million and £1.41 respectively, giving an ROI of 82%, and this was projected to increase to 270% over five years.Conclusion The TDFI approach improved the uptake of a patient safety guideline across three hospitals. The TDFI approach is clinically and cost effective in comparison to the usual practice.
    BMC Health Services Research 12/2014; 14(1):648. · 1.66 Impact Factor