Electronic Library for Guideline Developers

[Electronic Library for Guideline Developers]

10. The methods used for formulating the recommendations should be clearly described

FNCLCC
Les Standards, Options et Recommandation accompagnés du niveau de preuve, reposent sur les meilleures preuves scientifiques disponibles au moment de leur rédaction (best available evidence). Pouvant être selon le sujet des méta-analyses, des essais randomisés ou des études non-randomisées. Lorsque les preuves scientifiques font défaut pour un point particulier, le jugement est basé sur l’expérience professionnelle et le consensus du groupe d’experts ("accord d’expert" ). Le niveau de preuve est fonction du type et de la qualité des études disponibles ainsi que de la cohérence ou non de leurs résultats…"
AZQ
1.9 This question aims at designating the selection criteria used to derive the individual recommendations of the guideline from the evidence known (why special recommendations have been included in or excluded from the guideline). 1.10 This question requires more detailed information on the methods used to obtain consensus on the guideline's recommendations. The answer YES presupposes that at least the description of the methods used to obtain consensus should be more specific.	1.9 Diese Frage zielt auf die Angabe der Auswahlkriterien, nach denen die einzelnen Empfehlungen der Leitlinie aus der bekannten Evidenz abgeleitet wurden (warum wurden spezielle Empfehlungen in die Leitlinie aufgenommen / nicht aufgenommen ?) 1.10 Diese Frage verlangt nähere Angaben über die Methoden, mit deren Hilfe die Konsentierung der Leitlinienempfehlungen erreicht wurde. Ein JA setzt zumindest, dass die Konsentierungsmethoden näher beschrieben wurden.
Darlegung der Evidenzbewertung - AkdÄ Darlegung der Evidenzbewertung - DDG
Current Care
Ryhmän toinen kokous Keskeisten päätöskohtien sisällön määrittely näytönastekatsausten perusteella (kukin jäsen esittelee oman alueensa) ….. Ryhmän kolmas kokous Sovitaan tekstien täydennyksistä ja viimeistelystä, taulukoista ja kuvista Tarkistetaan näytönastekoodeja
NICE
Once the GDG has examined the evidence and discussed its suitability to answer the clinical questions, it needs to turn the evidence into recommendations. If the evidence is very strong (level 1 evidence), the process should be straightforward and the evidence should translate directly into a recommendation. However, in many cases it may not possible to proceed in this way. It is likely that, when formulating the recommendations, there will be instances where members of the GDG disagree about the content of the final product. Formal consensus methods can be used in agreeing the final recommendations. Whatever the approach used, there should be a very clear record of the proceedings and a clear statement about how areas of disagreement have been handled. Example
SIGN
The process used by SIGN guideline development groups to synthesise the evidence base to form graded guideline recommendations is described in detail in SIGN 50. Evidence tables should be compiled, summarising all the validated studies identified from the systematic literature review relating to each key question. These evidence tables form an important part of the guideline development record and ensure that the basis of the guideline development group’s recommendations is transparent. The multidisciplinary guideline development groups then review the total body of evidence covered by each evidence table, taking into account the quantity, quality, and consistency of evidence, the generalisability of the study findings, and their applicability to the target population for the guideline. Example evidence table Considered judgement form

If you have any problems in using this resource please contact sign@rcpe.ac.uk
For further information about the AGREE Collaboration contact f.cluzeau@sghms.ac.uk

Last modified 28/4/04