A guide to guidelines for professional societies and other developers of recommendations: Introduction to integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

Holger J. Schünemann, Mark Woodhead, Antonio Anzueto, A (Sonia) Buist, William MacNee, Klaus F. Rabe, John Heffner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Organizations around the world are recognizing that guidelines should be based on the best available evidence, that the development of recommendations needs to be transparent, and that appropriate processes should be followed. In June 2007, we convened an American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS)-sponsored workshop with over 60 representatives from 36 international organizations to provide advice to guideline developers about the required steps and processes for guideline development using the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an example. Following the workshop, participants completed aseries of 14 review articles that underwent peer review and incorporated key new literature until June 2011 for most articles in this series. The review articles evaluate the guideline cycle including: priority setting, question formulation, managing conflict of interest, defining appropriate outcomes, stakeholder involvement, grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, integration of values and preferences, considering resource use, reporting of guidelines, implementation, and adaptation. In this Introduction we frame the background and methods of these reviews and provide the key conclusions of the workshop. A summary of the workshop's conclusions and recommendations was published in The Lancet. Given the enormous resources that are spent on research and the importance of providing the best guidance to healthcare decision makers, attributing appropriate funds to research syntheses and transparent, independent guidance for the development of evidence-based guidelines is justified. Furthermore, given the immense amount of work that is required, individuals and organizations need to collaborate to achieve the best possible and cost-effective coordination of these efforts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-218
Number of pages4
JournalProceedings of the American Thoracic Society
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 15 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Thorax
Guidelines
Education
Organizations
Conflict of Interest
Peer Review
Financial Management
Research
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Guidelines
  • Professional medical organizations
  • Recommendations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

A guide to guidelines for professional societies and other developers of recommendations : Introduction to integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. / Schünemann, Holger J.; Woodhead, Mark; Anzueto, Antonio; Buist, A (Sonia); MacNee, William; Rabe, Klaus F.; Heffner, John.

In: Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society, Vol. 9, No. 5, 15.12.2012, p. 215-218.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5071117271224a088caed4663234746c,
title = "A guide to guidelines for professional societies and other developers of recommendations: Introduction to integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report",
abstract = "Organizations around the world are recognizing that guidelines should be based on the best available evidence, that the development of recommendations needs to be transparent, and that appropriate processes should be followed. In June 2007, we convened an American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS)-sponsored workshop with over 60 representatives from 36 international organizations to provide advice to guideline developers about the required steps and processes for guideline development using the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an example. Following the workshop, participants completed aseries of 14 review articles that underwent peer review and incorporated key new literature until June 2011 for most articles in this series. The review articles evaluate the guideline cycle including: priority setting, question formulation, managing conflict of interest, defining appropriate outcomes, stakeholder involvement, grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, integration of values and preferences, considering resource use, reporting of guidelines, implementation, and adaptation. In this Introduction we frame the background and methods of these reviews and provide the key conclusions of the workshop. A summary of the workshop's conclusions and recommendations was published in The Lancet. Given the enormous resources that are spent on research and the importance of providing the best guidance to healthcare decision makers, attributing appropriate funds to research syntheses and transparent, independent guidance for the development of evidence-based guidelines is justified. Furthermore, given the immense amount of work that is required, individuals and organizations need to collaborate to achieve the best possible and cost-effective coordination of these efforts.",
keywords = "Evidence-based medicine, Guidelines, Professional medical organizations, Recommendations",
author = "Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.} and Mark Woodhead and Antonio Anzueto and Buist, {A (Sonia)} and William MacNee and Rabe, {Klaus F.} and John Heffner",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1513/pats.201208-053ST",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "215--218",
journal = "Annals of the American Thoracic Society",
issn = "2325-6621",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A guide to guidelines for professional societies and other developers of recommendations

T2 - Introduction to integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Woodhead, Mark

AU - Anzueto, Antonio

AU - Buist, A (Sonia)

AU - MacNee, William

AU - Rabe, Klaus F.

AU - Heffner, John

PY - 2012/12/15

Y1 - 2012/12/15

N2 - Organizations around the world are recognizing that guidelines should be based on the best available evidence, that the development of recommendations needs to be transparent, and that appropriate processes should be followed. In June 2007, we convened an American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS)-sponsored workshop with over 60 representatives from 36 international organizations to provide advice to guideline developers about the required steps and processes for guideline development using the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an example. Following the workshop, participants completed aseries of 14 review articles that underwent peer review and incorporated key new literature until June 2011 for most articles in this series. The review articles evaluate the guideline cycle including: priority setting, question formulation, managing conflict of interest, defining appropriate outcomes, stakeholder involvement, grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, integration of values and preferences, considering resource use, reporting of guidelines, implementation, and adaptation. In this Introduction we frame the background and methods of these reviews and provide the key conclusions of the workshop. A summary of the workshop's conclusions and recommendations was published in The Lancet. Given the enormous resources that are spent on research and the importance of providing the best guidance to healthcare decision makers, attributing appropriate funds to research syntheses and transparent, independent guidance for the development of evidence-based guidelines is justified. Furthermore, given the immense amount of work that is required, individuals and organizations need to collaborate to achieve the best possible and cost-effective coordination of these efforts.

AB - Organizations around the world are recognizing that guidelines should be based on the best available evidence, that the development of recommendations needs to be transparent, and that appropriate processes should be followed. In June 2007, we convened an American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS)-sponsored workshop with over 60 representatives from 36 international organizations to provide advice to guideline developers about the required steps and processes for guideline development using the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an example. Following the workshop, participants completed aseries of 14 review articles that underwent peer review and incorporated key new literature until June 2011 for most articles in this series. The review articles evaluate the guideline cycle including: priority setting, question formulation, managing conflict of interest, defining appropriate outcomes, stakeholder involvement, grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, integration of values and preferences, considering resource use, reporting of guidelines, implementation, and adaptation. In this Introduction we frame the background and methods of these reviews and provide the key conclusions of the workshop. A summary of the workshop's conclusions and recommendations was published in The Lancet. Given the enormous resources that are spent on research and the importance of providing the best guidance to healthcare decision makers, attributing appropriate funds to research syntheses and transparent, independent guidance for the development of evidence-based guidelines is justified. Furthermore, given the immense amount of work that is required, individuals and organizations need to collaborate to achieve the best possible and cost-effective coordination of these efforts.

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - Guidelines

KW - Professional medical organizations

KW - Recommendations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872727737&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872727737&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1513/pats.201208-053ST

DO - 10.1513/pats.201208-053ST

M3 - Article

C2 - 23256161

AN - SCOPUS:84872727737

VL - 9

SP - 215

EP - 218

JO - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

JF - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

SN - 2325-6621

IS - 5

ER -