An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14110%2F22%3A00125668" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14110/22:00125668 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622000695" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622000695</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.008" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.008</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance
Original language description
Objective To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by COVID-19 guideline developers catalogued on the “COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization” platform. Study Design and Setting We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgements of strength, direction or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. Results Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements (Cramer’s V = 0.7, Fisher’s exact test; P <0.001). Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. Date of publication, utilized evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. Conclusion More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30304 - Public and environmental health
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Others
Publication year
2022
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ISSN
0895-4356
e-ISSN
1878-5921
Volume of the periodical
147
Issue of the periodical within the volume
July 2022
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
12
Pages from-to
83-94
UT code for WoS article
000808123800005
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85129313209