Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
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.
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 a...
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...
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...
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...
INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury: Methods, Overview, and Principles
INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury: Methods, Overview, and Principles
Introduction: Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) results in complex cognitive sequelae. Despite hundreds of clinical trials in cognitive rehabilitation, th...
Evaluation of Dermatology education, Exposure and Career Choice at Umm Al-Qura University
Evaluation of Dermatology education, Exposure and Career Choice at Umm Al-Qura University
Background and Aims: Dermatology is a highly competitive medical branch that deals with skin, hair, and nail disorders. Interest in dermatology has increased among medical student...
Comparison between dermatology coursework and veterinary student experience in Indonesian and US veterinary programs
Comparison between dermatology coursework and veterinary student experience in Indonesian and US veterinary programs
AbstractBackgroundDermatological cases are commonly encountered worldwide. Dermatology specialists and a specific dermatology curriculum may not be available in some parts of the w...

Back to Top