Using evidence in pain practice

Part I: Assessing quality of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The best evidence should inform all clinical decisions, but physicians cannot realistically keep up with all of the literature. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can help busy clinicians incorporate evidence into everyday medical decision-making are systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. However, conclusions of systematic reviews and recommendations of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines should not be accepted at face value. Like primary studies, they must adhere to rigorous standards in order to reduce error and bias. In fact, low-quality systematic reviews and guidelines can be very misleading. This article discusses what factors distinguish a high-quality systematic review. It also examines the difference between systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, and what factors distinguish a high-quality guideline. A separate article discusses how to interpret and apply systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, particularly when evidence is weak or inconclusive, or when different systematic reviews or guidelines are discordant.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)518-530
Number of pages13
JournalPain Medicine
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2008

Fingerprint

Practice Guidelines
Pain
Guidelines
Evidence-Based Practice
Physicians

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Meta-analysis
  • Pain
  • Practice guidelines
  • Review literature

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Using evidence in pain practice : Part I: Assessing quality of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. / Chou, Roger.

In: Pain Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 5, 07.2008, p. 518-530.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d9def86d64dd472e81a552ed6584159a,
title = "Using evidence in pain practice: Part I: Assessing quality of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines",
abstract = "The best evidence should inform all clinical decisions, but physicians cannot realistically keep up with all of the literature. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can help busy clinicians incorporate evidence into everyday medical decision-making are systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. However, conclusions of systematic reviews and recommendations of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines should not be accepted at face value. Like primary studies, they must adhere to rigorous standards in order to reduce error and bias. In fact, low-quality systematic reviews and guidelines can be very misleading. This article discusses what factors distinguish a high-quality systematic review. It also examines the difference between systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, and what factors distinguish a high-quality guideline. A separate article discusses how to interpret and apply systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, particularly when evidence is weak or inconclusive, or when different systematic reviews or guidelines are discordant.",
keywords = "Bias, Evidence-based medicine, Meta-analysis, Pain, Practice guidelines, Review literature",
author = "Roger Chou",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00422_1.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "518--530",
journal = "Pain Medicine",
issn = "1526-2375",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using evidence in pain practice

T2 - Part I: Assessing quality of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

AU - Chou, Roger

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - The best evidence should inform all clinical decisions, but physicians cannot realistically keep up with all of the literature. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can help busy clinicians incorporate evidence into everyday medical decision-making are systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. However, conclusions of systematic reviews and recommendations of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines should not be accepted at face value. Like primary studies, they must adhere to rigorous standards in order to reduce error and bias. In fact, low-quality systematic reviews and guidelines can be very misleading. This article discusses what factors distinguish a high-quality systematic review. It also examines the difference between systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, and what factors distinguish a high-quality guideline. A separate article discusses how to interpret and apply systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, particularly when evidence is weak or inconclusive, or when different systematic reviews or guidelines are discordant.

AB - The best evidence should inform all clinical decisions, but physicians cannot realistically keep up with all of the literature. Two types of preprocessed evidence that can help busy clinicians incorporate evidence into everyday medical decision-making are systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. However, conclusions of systematic reviews and recommendations of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines should not be accepted at face value. Like primary studies, they must adhere to rigorous standards in order to reduce error and bias. In fact, low-quality systematic reviews and guidelines can be very misleading. This article discusses what factors distinguish a high-quality systematic review. It also examines the difference between systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, and what factors distinguish a high-quality guideline. A separate article discusses how to interpret and apply systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, particularly when evidence is weak or inconclusive, or when different systematic reviews or guidelines are discordant.

KW - Bias

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Pain

KW - Practice guidelines

KW - Review literature

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48449088771&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48449088771&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00422_1.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00422_1.x

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 518

EP - 530

JO - Pain Medicine

JF - Pain Medicine

SN - 1526-2375

IS - 5

ER -