Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines
Abstract Object The rate of neurosurgery guidelines publications was compared over time to all other specialties. Neurosurgical guidelines and quality of supporting evidence were then analyzed and compared by subspecialty. Methods The authors first performed a Pubmed search for ‘Neurosurgery’ and ‘G...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | World neurosurgery 2016-06, Vol.90, p.322-339 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 339 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 322 |
| container_title | World neurosurgery |
| container_volume | 90 |
| creator | Ducis, Katrina, MD Florman, Jeffrey E., MD Rughani, Anand I., MD |
| description | Abstract Object The rate of neurosurgery guidelines publications was compared over time to all other specialties. Neurosurgical guidelines and quality of supporting evidence were then analyzed and compared by subspecialty. Methods The authors first performed a Pubmed search for ‘Neurosurgery’ and ‘Guidelines.' This was then compared against searches performed for each specialty of the American Board of Medical Specialties. The second analysis was an inventory of all neurosurgery guidelines published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Guidelines clearinghouse. All Class I evidence and Level 1 recommendations were compared for different subspecialty topics. Results When examined from 1970 to 2010 the rate of increase in publication of Neurosurgery guidelines was about one-third of all specialties combined (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.044 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1798993444</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1878875016002898</els_id><sourcerecordid>1798993444</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-bf6ffcecb6ebe9c1e5bf911fa55ab3ac16646dc01366132d2670ca0892b922be3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1LxDAQhoMoKuof8CA9etmaSbNpAyLIsn6A-IF6Dmk61azddk0aZf-9qbt68OBcZhLe94V5hpBDoClQECez9LPFkLI4p5SllPMNsgtFXoyKXMjN33lMd8iB9zMaKwNe5Nk22WFC8jxn-S6Zni8WTluvm6Srk_4Vk4egG9svh-ctBtf54F7QLZNJY1trou7eadNbg8llsBXGX_T7ZKvWjceDdd8jzxfTp8nV6Obu8npyfjMyHKAflbWoa4OmFFiiNIDjspYAtR6PdZlpA0JwURkKmRCQsYqJnBpNC8lKyViJ2R45XuUuXPce0Pdqbr3BptEtdsEryGUhZcY5j1K2kpq4gndYq4Wzc-2WCqgaCKqZGgiqgaCiTNFv09E6P5RzrH4tP7yi4HQlwLjlh0WnvLHYGqysQ9OrqrP_55_9sZs11Tdcop91wbWRnwLlo0E9DjccTgiCUlbIIvsCQo-XPg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1798993444</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ducis, Katrina, MD ; Florman, Jeffrey E., MD ; Rughani, Anand I., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Ducis, Katrina, MD ; Florman, Jeffrey E., MD ; Rughani, Anand I., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Object The rate of neurosurgery guidelines publications was compared over time to all other specialties. Neurosurgical guidelines and quality of supporting evidence were then analyzed and compared by subspecialty. Methods The authors first performed a Pubmed search for ‘Neurosurgery’ and ‘Guidelines.' This was then compared against searches performed for each specialty of the American Board of Medical Specialties. The second analysis was an inventory of all neurosurgery guidelines published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Guidelines clearinghouse. All Class I evidence and Level 1 recommendations were compared for different subspecialty topics. Results When examined from 1970 to 2010 the rate of increase in publication of Neurosurgery guidelines was about one-third of all specialties combined (p<0.0001). However, when only looking at the past five years the publication rate of Neurosurgery guidelines has converged upon that for all specialties. The second analysis identified 49 published guidelines for assessment. There were 2,733 studies cited as supporting evidence, with only 243 of these papers considered the highest class of evidence (8.9%). These papers were used to generate 697 recommendations of which 170 (24.4%) were considered ‘Level 1’ recommendations. Conclusion Although initially lagging, the publication of neurosurgical guidelines has recently increased at a rate comparable to that of other specialties. However, the quality of the evidence cited consists of a relatively low number of high quality studies from which guidelines are created. Wider implications of this must be considered when defining and measuring quality of clinical performance in neurosurgery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1878-8750</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-8769</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.044</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26947727</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Clinical guidelines ; Evidence-based medicine ; Information Dissemination - methods ; Neurosurgery ; Neurosurgery - standards ; Neurosurgery - statistics & numerical data ; Periodicals as Topic - standards ; Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data ; Practice guidelines ; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards ; Publishing - statistics & numerical data ; PubMed - statistics & numerical data ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - statistics & numerical data ; Quality of health care</subject><ispartof>World neurosurgery, 2016-06, Vol.90, p.322-339</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-bf6ffcecb6ebe9c1e5bf911fa55ab3ac16646dc01366132d2670ca0892b922be3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-bf6ffcecb6ebe9c1e5bf911fa55ab3ac16646dc01366132d2670ca0892b922be3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2093-2887</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878875016002898$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26947727$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ducis, Katrina, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Florman, Jeffrey E., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rughani, Anand I., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines</title><title>World neurosurgery</title><addtitle>World Neurosurg</addtitle><description>Abstract Object The rate of neurosurgery guidelines publications was compared over time to all other specialties. Neurosurgical guidelines and quality of supporting evidence were then analyzed and compared by subspecialty. Methods The authors first performed a Pubmed search for ‘Neurosurgery’ and ‘Guidelines.' This was then compared against searches performed for each specialty of the American Board of Medical Specialties. The second analysis was an inventory of all neurosurgery guidelines published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Guidelines clearinghouse. All Class I evidence and Level 1 recommendations were compared for different subspecialty topics. Results When examined from 1970 to 2010 the rate of increase in publication of Neurosurgery guidelines was about one-third of all specialties combined (p<0.0001). However, when only looking at the past five years the publication rate of Neurosurgery guidelines has converged upon that for all specialties. The second analysis identified 49 published guidelines for assessment. There were 2,733 studies cited as supporting evidence, with only 243 of these papers considered the highest class of evidence (8.9%). These papers were used to generate 697 recommendations of which 170 (24.4%) were considered ‘Level 1’ recommendations. Conclusion Although initially lagging, the publication of neurosurgical guidelines has recently increased at a rate comparable to that of other specialties. However, the quality of the evidence cited consists of a relatively low number of high quality studies from which guidelines are created. Wider implications of this must be considered when defining and measuring quality of clinical performance in neurosurgery.</description><subject>Clinical guidelines</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Information Dissemination - methods</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Neurosurgery - standards</subject><subject>Neurosurgery - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Practice guidelines</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Publishing - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>PubMed - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Quality of health care</subject><issn>1878-8750</issn><issn>1878-8769</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1LxDAQhoMoKuof8CA9etmaSbNpAyLIsn6A-IF6Dmk61azddk0aZf-9qbt68OBcZhLe94V5hpBDoClQECez9LPFkLI4p5SllPMNsgtFXoyKXMjN33lMd8iB9zMaKwNe5Nk22WFC8jxn-S6Zni8WTluvm6Srk_4Vk4egG9svh-ctBtf54F7QLZNJY1trou7eadNbg8llsBXGX_T7ZKvWjceDdd8jzxfTp8nV6Obu8npyfjMyHKAflbWoa4OmFFiiNIDjspYAtR6PdZlpA0JwURkKmRCQsYqJnBpNC8lKyViJ2R45XuUuXPce0Pdqbr3BptEtdsEryGUhZcY5j1K2kpq4gndYq4Wzc-2WCqgaCKqZGgiqgaCiTNFv09E6P5RzrH4tP7yi4HQlwLjlh0WnvLHYGqysQ9OrqrP_55_9sZs11Tdcop91wbWRnwLlo0E9DjccTgiCUlbIIvsCQo-XPg</recordid><startdate>20160601</startdate><enddate>20160601</enddate><creator>Ducis, Katrina, MD</creator><creator>Florman, Jeffrey E., MD</creator><creator>Rughani, Anand I., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2093-2887</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160601</creationdate><title>Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines</title><author>Ducis, Katrina, MD ; Florman, Jeffrey E., MD ; Rughani, Anand I., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-bf6ffcecb6ebe9c1e5bf911fa55ab3ac16646dc01366132d2670ca0892b922be3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Clinical guidelines</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Information Dissemination - methods</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Neurosurgery - standards</topic><topic>Neurosurgery - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Practice guidelines</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Publishing - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>PubMed - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Quality of health care</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ducis, Katrina, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Florman, Jeffrey E., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rughani, Anand I., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World neurosurgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ducis, Katrina, MD</au><au>Florman, Jeffrey E., MD</au><au>Rughani, Anand I., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines</atitle><jtitle>World neurosurgery</jtitle><addtitle>World Neurosurg</addtitle><date>2016-06-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>90</volume><spage>322</spage><epage>339</epage><pages>322-339</pages><issn>1878-8750</issn><eissn>1878-8769</eissn><abstract>Abstract Object The rate of neurosurgery guidelines publications was compared over time to all other specialties. Neurosurgical guidelines and quality of supporting evidence were then analyzed and compared by subspecialty. Methods The authors first performed a Pubmed search for ‘Neurosurgery’ and ‘Guidelines.' This was then compared against searches performed for each specialty of the American Board of Medical Specialties. The second analysis was an inventory of all neurosurgery guidelines published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Guidelines clearinghouse. All Class I evidence and Level 1 recommendations were compared for different subspecialty topics. Results When examined from 1970 to 2010 the rate of increase in publication of Neurosurgery guidelines was about one-third of all specialties combined (p<0.0001). However, when only looking at the past five years the publication rate of Neurosurgery guidelines has converged upon that for all specialties. The second analysis identified 49 published guidelines for assessment. There were 2,733 studies cited as supporting evidence, with only 243 of these papers considered the highest class of evidence (8.9%). These papers were used to generate 697 recommendations of which 170 (24.4%) were considered ‘Level 1’ recommendations. Conclusion Although initially lagging, the publication of neurosurgical guidelines has recently increased at a rate comparable to that of other specialties. However, the quality of the evidence cited consists of a relatively low number of high quality studies from which guidelines are created. Wider implications of this must be considered when defining and measuring quality of clinical performance in neurosurgery.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26947727</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.044</doi><tpages>18</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2093-2887</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1878-8750 |
| ispartof | World neurosurgery, 2016-06, Vol.90, p.322-339 |
| issn | 1878-8750 1878-8769 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1798993444 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Clinical guidelines Evidence-based medicine Information Dissemination - methods Neurosurgery Neurosurgery - standards Neurosurgery - statistics & numerical data Periodicals as Topic - standards Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data Practice guidelines Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards Publishing - statistics & numerical data PubMed - statistics & numerical data Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods Quality Assurance, Health Care - statistics & numerical data Quality of health care |
| title | Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T15%3A04%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Appraisal%20of%20the%20Quality%20of%20Neurosurgery%20Clinical%20Practice%20Guidelines&rft.jtitle=World%20neurosurgery&rft.au=Ducis,%20Katrina,%20MD&rft.date=2016-06-01&rft.volume=90&rft.spage=322&rft.epage=339&rft.pages=322-339&rft.issn=1878-8750&rft.eissn=1878-8769&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.044&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1798993444%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1798993444&rft_id=info:pmid/26947727&rft_els_id=S1878875016002898&rfr_iscdi=true |