Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Variation in cardiology practice guidelines over time examined

Date:
May 27, 2014
Source:
American Medical Association
Summary:
An analysis of more than 600 class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommendations published or revised since 1998 finds that about 80 percent were retained at the time of the next guideline revision, and that recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies were more likely to be downgraded, reversed, or omitted.

An analysis of more than 600 class I (procedure/treatment should be performed/administered) American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommendations published or revised since 1998 finds that about 80 percent were retained at the time of the next guideline revision, and that recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies were more likely to be downgraded, reversed, or omitted, according to a study in the May 28 issue of JAMA.

As adherence to recommended clinical practice guidelines increasingly is used to measure performance, guidelines play a major role in policy efforts to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of care. Past research has established the importance of revising guidelines over time to address advances in research and population-level changes in health risks. Nonetheless, unwarranted variability across guidelines can reduce trust in guideline processes and complicate efforts to promote consistent use of evidence-based practices. Moreover, policies based on recommendations that prematurely endorse practices subsequently found to be ineffective can lead to waste and potential harm. Little is known regarding the degree to which individual guideline recommendations endure or change over time, according to background information in the article.

Mark D. Neuman, M.D., M.Sc., of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues analyzed variations in class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines (n = 11) published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013. The researchers reviewed and recorded all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. Recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations were classified as having been downgraded or reversed; recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified were classified as having been omitted.

Out of 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0 percent) were retained in the subsequent version; 8.9 percent were downgraded, 0.3 percent were reversed, and 10.8 percent were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4 percent to 94.1 percent.

Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5 percent of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0 percent of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7 percent of recommendations supported by opinion. After accounting for guideline-level factors, the odds of a downgrade, reversal, or omission were more than 3 times greater for recommendations based on a single trial, observational data, consensus opinion, or standard of care than for recommendations based on multiple randomized trials.

"… our results may have important implications for health policy and medical practice. The categorization of medical evidence, through guidelines, into stronger and weaker recommendations, influences definitions of good medical practice and informs efforts to measure the quality of care on a large scale. Our findings stress the need for frequent re-evaluation of practices and policies based on guideline recommendations, particularly in cases where such recommendations rely primarily on expert opinion or limited clinical evidence," the authors write.

"Moreover, our results suggest that the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines as a mechanism for quality improvement may be aided by systematically identifying and reducing unwarranted variability in recommendations. Finally, our work emphasizes the importance of greater efforts on the part of guideline-producing organizations to communicate the reasons that specific recommendations are downgraded, reversed, or omitted over time."

Editorial: Updating Practice Guidelines

In an accompanying editorial, Paul G. Shekelle, M.D., Ph.D., of the VA West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, and RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, discusses the importance of keeping clinical practice guideline recommendations up-to-date.

"The need for surveillance and updating of practice guidelines is increasingly gaining attention. To meet the need, guideline development organizations need to change their focus. This change is not easy. It is not just a matter of resources, although guideline organizations are going to have to devote more resources to active surveillance and maintenance of their guidelines than most probably do at present. It also has to be a change to the mindset, recognizing that keeping existing guidelines up-to-date in a timely way is an important goal for good patient care."


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by American Medical Association. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal References:

  1. Mark D. Neuman, Jennifer N. Goldstein, Michael A. Cirullo, J. Sanford Schwartz. Durability of Class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations. JAMA, 2014; 311 (20): 2092 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.4949
  2. Paul G. Shekelle. Updating Practice Guidelines. JAMA, 2014; 311 (20): 2072 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.4950

Cite This Page:

American Medical Association. "Variation in cardiology practice guidelines over time examined." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 May 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140527161716.htm>.
American Medical Association. (2014, May 27). Variation in cardiology practice guidelines over time examined. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 2, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140527161716.htm
American Medical Association. "Variation in cardiology practice guidelines over time examined." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140527161716.htm (accessed September 2, 2014).

Share This




More Health & Medicine News

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Snack Attack: Study Says Action Movies Make You Snack More

Snack Attack: Study Says Action Movies Make You Snack More

Newsy (Sep. 2, 2014) You're more likely to gain weight while watching action flicks than you are watching other types of programming, says a new study published in JAMA. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
U.N. Says Ebola Travel Restrictions Will Cause Food Shortage

U.N. Says Ebola Travel Restrictions Will Cause Food Shortage

Newsy (Sep. 2, 2014) The U.N. says the problem is two-fold — quarantine zones and travel restrictions are limiting the movement of both people and food. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Get on Your Bike! London Cycling Popularity Soars Despite Danger

Get on Your Bike! London Cycling Popularity Soars Despite Danger

AFP (Sep. 1, 2014) Wedged between buses, lorries and cars, cycling in London isn't for the faint hearted. Nevertheless the number of people choosing to bike in the British capital has doubled over the past 15 years. Duration: 02:27 Video provided by AFP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Can You Train Your Brain To Eat Healthy?

Can You Train Your Brain To Eat Healthy?

Newsy (Sep. 1, 2014) New research says if you condition yourself to eat healthy foods, eventually you'll crave them instead of junk food. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:
from the past week

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins