Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Evaluation of the Level of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations Constituting the American Academy of Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)
View through CrossRef
BACKGROUND
Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based recommendations used by physicians to improve patient care. These guidelines provide the physician with an assessment of the benefits and harms of a treatment and its alternatives. Therefore, it is essential that the clinical practice guidelines be based on the strongest available evidence. Numerous studies in a variety of different fields of medicine have demonstrated that recommendations supported by weak evidence are a common theme in clinical practice guidelines. A clinical guideline based solely on weak evidence has the capability to reduce the quality of care provided by physicians.
OBJECTIVE
Our primary objective is to evaluate the levels of evidence supporting the recommendations constituting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.
METHODS
Using a cross-sectional study design, authors SM and RO located all current clinical practice guidelines on the American Academy of Dermatology website on June 10, 2017, and December 11, 2019. Each recommendation and its corresponding evidence rating were extracted in a duplicate and blinded fashion. A consensus meeting was planned a priori to resolve disagreements in extractions or stratifications.
RESULTS
In total, 6 clinical guidelines and their subsections were screened and 899 recommendations were identified. Our final data set included 841 recommendations, as 58 recommendations contained no level of evidence and were excluded from calculations. Many recommendations were supported by a moderate level of evidence and therefore received a B rating (346/841, 41.1%). Roughly one-third of the recommendations were supported by a strong level of evidence and were given an A rating (n=307, 36.5%). The clinical practice guideline with the highest overall strength of evidence was regarding the treatment of acne, which had 17 of 35 (48.6%) recommendations supported by strong evidence and only 2 (5.7%) supported by weak evidence. The clinical practice guideline with the fewest recommendations supported by strong evidence was melanoma (13/63, 20.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical practice guidelines that lack strong supporting evidence could negatively affect patient care, and dermatologists should be mindful that not all recommendations are supported by the strongest level of evidence. An increased quantity of quality research needs to be performed in the field of dermatology to improve the evidence supporting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.
JMIR Publications Inc.
Title: Evaluation of the Level of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations Constituting the American Academy of Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)
Description:
BACKGROUND
Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based recommendations used by physicians to improve patient care.
These guidelines provide the physician with an assessment of the benefits and harms of a treatment and its alternatives.
Therefore, it is essential that the clinical practice guidelines be based on the strongest available evidence.
Numerous studies in a variety of different fields of medicine have demonstrated that recommendations supported by weak evidence are a common theme in clinical practice guidelines.
A clinical guideline based solely on weak evidence has the capability to reduce the quality of care provided by physicians.
OBJECTIVE
Our primary objective is to evaluate the levels of evidence supporting the recommendations constituting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.
METHODS
Using a cross-sectional study design, authors SM and RO located all current clinical practice guidelines on the American Academy of Dermatology website on June 10, 2017, and December 11, 2019.
Each recommendation and its corresponding evidence rating were extracted in a duplicate and blinded fashion.
A consensus meeting was planned a priori to resolve disagreements in extractions or stratifications.
RESULTS
In total, 6 clinical guidelines and their subsections were screened and 899 recommendations were identified.
Our final data set included 841 recommendations, as 58 recommendations contained no level of evidence and were excluded from calculations.
Many recommendations were supported by a moderate level of evidence and therefore received a B rating (346/841, 41.
1%).
Roughly one-third of the recommendations were supported by a strong level of evidence and were given an A rating (n=307, 36.
5%).
The clinical practice guideline with the highest overall strength of evidence was regarding the treatment of acne, which had 17 of 35 (48.
6%) recommendations supported by strong evidence and only 2 (5.
7%) supported by weak evidence.
The clinical practice guideline with the fewest recommendations supported by strong evidence was melanoma (13/63, 20.
6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical practice guidelines that lack strong supporting evidence could negatively affect patient care, and dermatologists should be mindful that not all recommendations are supported by the strongest level of evidence.
An increased quantity of quality research needs to be performed in the field of dermatology to improve the evidence supporting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.
Related Results
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activi...
Comparison of dermatology procedures performed by physician assistants/associates in dermatology and dermatologists for Medicare beneficiaries in 2021
Comparison of dermatology procedures performed by physician assistants/associates in dermatology and dermatologists for Medicare beneficiaries in 2021
Background:
Integrating physician assistants/associates (PAs) into dermatology practice has been a significant step toward addressing the shortage of dermatolog...
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Abstract
The rapid growth of open access publishing (OAP) has significantly improved the accessibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, this expansion has also c...
Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument
Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument
INTRODUCTION:
Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, eva...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Rethinking Anticoagulation in Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplantation
Rethinking Anticoagulation in Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplantation
BackgroundA clinical dilemma exists in patients with CKD, ESKD, and after kidney transplantation, as they face concurrent risks of both thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications...
P045 Evaluating the outcome of evidenced-based educational design: the British College of Dermatology Foundation Masterclass in Dermatology
P045 Evaluating the outcome of evidenced-based educational design: the British College of Dermatology Foundation Masterclass in Dermatology
Abstract
Nonspecialist resident doctors in the UK feel less confident in diagnosing and managing common dermatological conditions, despite these competencies being r...
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract
Introduction
Tarlatamab is a Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) -directed bispecific T-cell engager recently approved for use in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer (SCL...

