The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Evidence-based clinical guidelines: a new system to better determine true strength of recommendation90

Evidence-based clinical guidelines: a new system to better determine true strength of recommendation90
Evidence-based clinical guidelines: a new system to better determine true strength of recommendation90
Rationale, aims and objectives: clinical practice guidelines often grade the 'strength' of their recommendations according to the robustness of the supporting research evidence. The existing methodology does not allow the strength of recommendation (SOR) to be upgraded for recommendations for which randomized controlled trials are impractical or unethical. The purpose of this study was to develop a new method of determining SOR, incorporating both research evidence and expert opinion.

Methods: a Delphi technique was employed to produce 10 recommendations for the role of exercise therapy in the management of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The SOR for each recommendation was determined by the traditional method, closely linked to the category of research evidence found on a systematic literature search, and on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Recommendations were grouped A-D according to the traditional SOR allocated and the mean VAS calculated. Difference across the groups was assessed by one-way anova variance analysis.

Results: mean VAS scores for the traditional SOR groups A-D and one proposition which was 'not recommended' showed significant linearity on one-way anova. However, certain recommendations which, for practical reasons, could not assessed in randomized controlled trials and therefore could not be recommended strongly by the traditional methodology, were allocated a strong recommendation by VAS.

Conclusions: this new system of grading strength of SOR is less constrained than the traditional methodology and offers the advantage of allowing SOR for procedures which cannot be assessed in RCTs for practical or ethical reasons to be upgraded according to expert opinion
research, delphi technique, therapy, exercise, analysis, methods, bone, randomized controlled trials, hip, osteoarthritis
1356-1294
347-352
Roddy, E.
f2290b1c-6321-464a-a33c-d2be3f666fcf
Zhang, W.
1c80d4f2-4ba8-41f6-85a6-a76a4d65dc9b
Doherty, M.
3ccd8b47-e119-4f38-b813-08e9036a9ff3
Arden, N. K.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f
Barlow, J.
a79fb2a6-04e7-400e-a67e-8625743bef60
Birrell, F.
a37bb72c-a86a-4cc0-a3b2-8a26508b1cce
Carr, A.
85c8478c-1212-4d8b-986f-d3c212298807
Chakravarty, K.
6bdb584d-4cf1-42e1-b9bb-9be6d4666922
Dickson, J.
84331173-e5a3-474e-8d11-6296304497cb
Hay, E.
522d6154-cb56-4ed1-9be8-4e4ffd8b27da
Hosie, G.
c8949a69-8d9f-40e9-b752-9ca92acca09d
Hurley, M.
c9a1bd6f-9096-4420-82b0-58338ed3fb2e
Jordan, K. M.
6d75b3f7-e6fb-4dd5-92cf-44d82659bb19
McCarthy, C.
04832e04-6197-47b4-b9d3-571f576def4d
McMurdo, M.
4de02cd0-c210-492c-97d7-d51b63773bee
Mockett, S.
02235d13-feca-47e1-89b9-82bc39a796ef
O'Reilly, S.
3134125c-d3af-447d-87d2-4ba6ef66467c
Peat, G.
eb84fa13-dcd6-4891-9215-607717dbc2fb
Pendleton, A.
863680ac-d685-4b3b-9412-ec89bce32337
Richards, S.
231c6be9-3769-47b3-ae97-06ea844e0448
Roddy, E.
f2290b1c-6321-464a-a33c-d2be3f666fcf
Zhang, W.
1c80d4f2-4ba8-41f6-85a6-a76a4d65dc9b
Doherty, M.
3ccd8b47-e119-4f38-b813-08e9036a9ff3
Arden, N. K.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f
Barlow, J.
a79fb2a6-04e7-400e-a67e-8625743bef60
Birrell, F.
a37bb72c-a86a-4cc0-a3b2-8a26508b1cce
Carr, A.
85c8478c-1212-4d8b-986f-d3c212298807
Chakravarty, K.
6bdb584d-4cf1-42e1-b9bb-9be6d4666922
Dickson, J.
84331173-e5a3-474e-8d11-6296304497cb
Hay, E.
522d6154-cb56-4ed1-9be8-4e4ffd8b27da
Hosie, G.
c8949a69-8d9f-40e9-b752-9ca92acca09d
Hurley, M.
c9a1bd6f-9096-4420-82b0-58338ed3fb2e
Jordan, K. M.
6d75b3f7-e6fb-4dd5-92cf-44d82659bb19
McCarthy, C.
04832e04-6197-47b4-b9d3-571f576def4d
McMurdo, M.
4de02cd0-c210-492c-97d7-d51b63773bee
Mockett, S.
02235d13-feca-47e1-89b9-82bc39a796ef
O'Reilly, S.
3134125c-d3af-447d-87d2-4ba6ef66467c
Peat, G.
eb84fa13-dcd6-4891-9215-607717dbc2fb
Pendleton, A.
863680ac-d685-4b3b-9412-ec89bce32337
Richards, S.
231c6be9-3769-47b3-ae97-06ea844e0448

Roddy, E., Zhang, W., Doherty, M., Arden, N. K., Barlow, J., Birrell, F., Carr, A., Chakravarty, K., Dickson, J., Hay, E., Hosie, G., Hurley, M., Jordan, K. M., McCarthy, C., McMurdo, M., Mockett, S., O'Reilly, S., Peat, G., Pendleton, A. and Richards, S. (2006) Evidence-based clinical guidelines: a new system to better determine true strength of recommendation90. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 12 (3), 347-352. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00629.x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives: clinical practice guidelines often grade the 'strength' of their recommendations according to the robustness of the supporting research evidence. The existing methodology does not allow the strength of recommendation (SOR) to be upgraded for recommendations for which randomized controlled trials are impractical or unethical. The purpose of this study was to develop a new method of determining SOR, incorporating both research evidence and expert opinion.

Methods: a Delphi technique was employed to produce 10 recommendations for the role of exercise therapy in the management of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The SOR for each recommendation was determined by the traditional method, closely linked to the category of research evidence found on a systematic literature search, and on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Recommendations were grouped A-D according to the traditional SOR allocated and the mean VAS calculated. Difference across the groups was assessed by one-way anova variance analysis.

Results: mean VAS scores for the traditional SOR groups A-D and one proposition which was 'not recommended' showed significant linearity on one-way anova. However, certain recommendations which, for practical reasons, could not assessed in randomized controlled trials and therefore could not be recommended strongly by the traditional methodology, were allocated a strong recommendation by VAS.

Conclusions: this new system of grading strength of SOR is less constrained than the traditional methodology and offers the advantage of allowing SOR for procedures which cannot be assessed in RCTs for practical or ethical reasons to be upgraded according to expert opinion

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: June 2006
Keywords: research, delphi technique, therapy, exercise, analysis, methods, bone, randomized controlled trials, hip, osteoarthritis

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 61477
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/61477
ISSN: 1356-1294
PURE UUID: 7743977e-0f85-4c86-a2b3-3a345e51a9d7

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 Sep 2008
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 11:26

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: E. Roddy
Author: W. Zhang
Author: M. Doherty
Author: N. K. Arden
Author: J. Barlow
Author: F. Birrell
Author: A. Carr
Author: K. Chakravarty
Author: J. Dickson
Author: E. Hay
Author: G. Hosie
Author: M. Hurley
Author: K. M. Jordan
Author: C. McCarthy
Author: M. McMurdo
Author: S. Mockett
Author: S. O'Reilly
Author: G. Peat
Author: A. Pendleton
Author: S. Richards

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×