An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 &lt;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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 &lt;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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30304 - Public and environmental health

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ISSN

0895-4356

e-ISSN

1878-5921

Svazek periodika

147

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

July 2022

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

83-94

Kód UT WoS článku

000808123800005

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85129313209