0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines Targeting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease FREE

Yves Lacasse, MD, MSC; Ivone Ferreira, MD; Dina Brooks, PhD; Toni Newman, BSC; Roger S. Goldstein, MB, CHB
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Centre de Pneumologie de L'Hôpital Laval, Ste-Foy, Québec (Dr Lacasse); the Departments of Medicine (Drs Ferreira and Goldstein) and Physical Therapy (Drs Brooks and Goldstein), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; and the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (Ms Newman).


Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(1):69-74. doi:10.1001/archinte.161.1.69.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is so prevalent that the endorsement of management strategies by professional organizations issuing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) will likely influence the clinical and financial resources allocated to this condition.

Objectives  To examine the content of and to critically appraise the CPGs targeting COPD.

Methods  We identified, through a MEDLINE search (from January 1990 to May 1999) and contacts with experts and professional organizations, the CPGs for the overall management of COPD. We assessed the guidelines according to an index of quality measuring 3 dimensions: the rigor of development, the context and content, and the extent to which the dissemination and implementation have been addressed. The recommendations were also examined and compared.

Results  Of the 15 CPGs we included, none was based on a systematic review of the literature. Two were independently reviewed before their release, 1 included strategies for dissemination and implementation, and 1 estimated the economic implications associated with its recommendations. The recommendations were often difficult to interpret (reviewers' agreement: κ median, 0.41). When unanimity existed regarding the benefits of a given management modality (such as respiratory rehabilitation), discrepancies were often identified in the application of the recommendation.

Conclusions  The methodological quality of CPGs targeting COPD is limited, and there are disparities among many of their recommendations. Despite there being several CPGs worldwide, there is a need for an evidence-based summary of the literature to serve as a resource for those who provide health care to individuals with COPD.

CHRONIC obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely prevalent in developed and developing countries.1 From the National Health Interview Survey conducted in the United States in 1993,2 the prevalence of COPD approximated 5%. A Canadian health survey reflected that, in 1994-1995, 6% of the population aged 55 years and older acknowledged the diagnosis of COPD having been made by a health professional.3 Similarly, European studies4 have indicated that 4% to 6% of the adult population has clinically relevant COPD. As COPD is so prevalent, treatment approaches recommended by professional organizations are likely to affect the attitudes and behaviors of health care professionals and the use of health care resources associated with its management.

Representative examples that have clinical and financial implications include the use of ipratropium bromide vs β2-agonists, the indications for inhaled corticosteroids and oral theophylline, the benefit of oxygen therapy for transient nocturnal or exercise desaturation, and the use of noninvasive ventilation in end-stage disease.

Several organizations have developed practice guidelines to assist clinicians in making decisions about the management of COPD. Practice guidelines are defined as "systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances."5(p1) They are intended to improve the process of health care and health outcomes, to decrease practice variation, and to optimize resources use.6 Despite the previously described intentions, it is sometimes unclear whether such guidelines do actually influence patient outcomes.7 Poor scientific quality ("validity") of the practice guidelines or the lack of a cogent implementation strategy may contribute to their failure to influence outcomes.7 Primary criteria defining the validity of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) include whether an explicit, sensible process was used to identify, select, and combine the evidence supporting its recommendations. It is also necessary for the important management options and outcomes to be clearly specified.8

We recently appraised CPGs for the management of COPD published by professional organizations to compare them and to explore potential sources of discrepancy among their recommendations.

We searched MEDLINE (from January 1990 to May 1999) for CPGs related to the overall management of COPD using the core strategies of: (1) lung diseases, obstructive; and (2) guideline—publication type or guideline*—text word. We also contacted content experts and professional organizations to retrieve documents not listed in MEDLINE. We selected only the guidelines targeting the comprehensive management of COPD and excluded guidelines that addressed specific components of the disease, such as respiratory rehabilitation or home oxygen use. We excluded reports that were secondary publications of practice guidelines, individual overviews, original investigations, editorials, and letters to the editor. Practice guidelines published in other languages (French, Norwegian, German, Spanish, and Polish) were translated into English.

We selected, from the 12 instruments that measure the scientific quality of practice guidelines,9 the one instrument that provided data supporting its validity and reliability (the "Appraisal Instrument for Clinical Guidelines" developed by Cluzeau et al10). This instrument had satisfactory internal reliability and was able to differentiate the components of guideline development that contributed to the overall guideline quality. It measures 3 methodological dimensions: (1) the rigor of development, (2) the context and content, and (3) the extent to which dissemination and implementation have been addressed during development. Four reviewers (Y.L., I.F., D.B., and R.S.G.) used this instrument to independently appraise the COPD practice guidelines.

Three reviewers (Y.L., I.F., and D.B.) also examined the guidelines for specific components relating to the management of COPD, including the following: (1) the initial assessment of the patients, (2) smoking cessation, (3) vaccination, (4) pharmacological management, (5) oxygen therapy, (6) rehabilitation, (7) surgical therapy, (8) management of acute exacerbations, and (9) α1-antitrypsin replacement therapy. These components were classified as "recommended," "not recommended," "mentioned without any firm recommendation," or "not mentioned at all." For inhaled bronchodilators, we noted the priority ranking that was attached to their use in the initial bronchodilator prescription. Where the guidelines agreed on a management approach, we examined their recommendations regarding its application. Agreement among the reviewers for the methodological quality score and the strength of recommendations was measured using κ statistics. Once all the reviewers had appraised the content and quality of the guidelines, they shared the results of their assessment. Whenever disagreement was identified among the reviewers, it was resolved following a discussion involving all of them.

We identified 15 CPGs published between August 1992 and May 1999.1125 Seven12,14,16,18,20,21,24 of the 15 guidelines were published in languages other than English. When we applied the appraisal instrument to these guidelines, we noted many limitations in their scientific validity.

Rigor of Development

None of the guidelines met the primary criteria of validity, ie, none were truly evidence-based. In only 1 guideline did the authors mention that they conducted MEDLINE searches to retrieve relevant literature; however, neither the search strategy nor the study selection criteria were detailed. One guideline included an explicit statement about how the background evidence was synthesized and categorized. Sources of external funding for guideline development were clearly identified by 7 of the 15 professional organizations. In only 1 of them did the authors clearly mention that the "sponsorship did not influence the activities of the group." Mention of an independent review (other than a possible review related to their being published in peer-reviewed journals) was included in 6 guidelines. None of the guidelines was pilot tested, and only 1 included a date for reviewing or updating. A trend in the improvement of guidelines development methods over time was not clearly apparent. With few exceptions, there was no clear indication that local and cultural influences had modulated any of the organizations' recommendations.

Context and Content

The objectives of the guidelines were stated in 10 documents. All provided a clinical definition of COPD that would clearly identify the population to which the guidelines were meant to apply. Only 1 of the guidelines included an estimate of the expenditures likely to be associated with the recommended management.

Dissemination and Implementation

Two guidelines suggested possible methods for implementation.

Table 1 summarizes our observation relating to the content of the 15 practice guidelines. Clarity of the recommendations was often lacking. This was reflected by the moderate level of agreement among the 3 reviewers on the recommendations attached to each management component (κ median, 0.41; interquartile range, 0.21-0.85). Disagreement often stemmed from trying to interpret phrases such as "may be used" or "can be considered." All the guidelines recommended smoking cessation, and almost all recommended influenza vaccination. Recommendations for vaccination against pneumococcus varied. Other areas of controversy included the preferential use of β2-agonists vs anticholinergic agents as first-line bronchodilators, the indication for mucolytics, the role of inhaled corticosteroids, and the prescription of oxygen therapy for patients with transient desaturation during sleep or exercise. Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema was an especially good example of a management strategy that has been widely accepted by some despite considerable debate regarding its indications and effectiveness (in the absence of a single randomized controlled trial). Guidelines issued after the publication of the report26 that relaunched interest in this intervention also varied in their recommendations, with 4 supporting it, 3 not mentioning it at all, and 5 being equivocal.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Content of Practice Guidelines Related to the Overall Management of COPD*

When unanimity existed regarding a particular recommendation, we often identified discrepancies in its application. For example, regarding respiratory rehabilitation, the recommendations ranged from no application rule at all to specific recommendations based on the measurement of PCO2 or the response to a trial of oral glucocorticoids (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Indications of Respiratory Rehabilitation (Including Exercise Training) According to 15 National Practice Guidelines on the Management of COPD*

The methodological quality of CPGs that address the comprehensive management of COPD is limited. This conclusion is in support of the observation by Shaneyfelt et al27 that during the past decade, guidelines published in peer-reviewed medical literature have not always adhered to methodological standards. The selection, evaluation, and synthesis of the scientific evidence are the items being most in need of improvement. It is likely that the discrepancies among the practice guidelines have arisen from different interpretations of the medical literature. Given the frequency with which guidelines were developed by "experts" who relied heavily on their knowledge or opinions of published work rather than a systematic review of the literature,28 the guidelines likely reflected individual enthusiasm and biases. These may not necessarily be synonymous with current knowledge based on available evidence. Inevitably, discrepancies will arise based on different interpretations of the medical literature, as was identified by Antman et al29 in a comparison of the results of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials for the treatment of myocardial infarction and by the recommendations of clinical experts.

Criteria defining the quality of a CPG are yet to be fully validated. Guidelines' developers themselves may not agree on the methods perceived by others to be optimal. Also, the "optimal methods" may be too onerous to be implemented even by professional organizations.30 We selected the Appraisal Instrument for Clinical Guidelines developed by Cluzeau et al10 to measure the scientific quality of the guidelines because it is the only instrument for which data supporting its validity were available. In the absence of a gold standard of guideline quality, the validity of this instrument was determined by the authors' finding of (1) significant correlations between the scores obtained from the instrument and their global assessment of a selection of 60 guidelines; and (2) higher scores for national guidelines than for local guidelines, a result that met their a priori prediction. The items included in the instrument we used in this study and the criteria selected by Shaneyfelt et al27 are similar and encompass those that would be important to most guideline users.30 Among these criteria, the generation of evidence-based recommendations is perceived as an important initial step in the guideline development process31 and should become a primary criterion of guideline quality.

The interest in evidence-based practice guidelines is not restricted to methodologists. Grol et al32 recently found that family practitioners were most likely to comply with clear, evidence-based recommendations, whereas vague, controversial recommendations, especially those requiring a change in existing practice, were less likely to be followed. When reviewing information on disease management, clinicians preferred brief summaries of the major recommendations with a synopsis of the underlying evidence for the expected benefits and risks.33

The development of evidence-based guidelines presents several major challenges. A systematic review of the literature is time-consuming and expensive, a task expanded by the inclusion of several components of management in a single document. Existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses will often obviate the need or reduce it to updating.31 If more than 1 systematic review has been published, conflicting interpretations may emerge. There may be insufficient well-designed trials to guide clinical practice, in which case professional judgment and group consensus can fill gaps of knowledge provided that major assumptions or areas of uncertainty are acknowledged.34 This involves a summary of the evidence available, including its susceptibility to bias. An example of such a classification scheme is found in Table 3. An organization may support lung volume reduction surgery in its guidelines despite the absence of a single randomized controlled trial. The decision may be based on the results of encouraging case series and the availability of financial and human resources. However, such a recommendation should also detail the level of evidence attached to it (in this case, level 3 at best). Another organization might consider the evidence insufficient to include lung volume reduction surgery in its guidelines. In both cases, the decision would be based on the evidence available at the time of the guideline publication.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Levels of Scientific Evidence About Therapeutic Interventions*

For the 26 components of the management of COPD summarized in Table 1, we observed several differences in recommendations for which there is most often neither a "right" nor a "wrong" answer. Some of the differences may stem from the evolution, from 1992 to 1999, of the scientific knowledge regarding the effectiveness of several interventions. We submit that the only misleading recommendations are those for which strong data establishing the lack of efficacy are available.

Finally, even well-conducted systematic reviews are insufficient for guidelines until they are interpreted in the context of local factors, such as patient preferences and the health care setting in which the recommendations are being made.35 Thus, although respiratory rehabilitation improves important domains of the quality of life of patients with COPD, practice guidelines must consider that less than 2% of the population with COPD per annum has access to such programs.36 The British Thoracic Society provided an interesting example of such a situation in stating that "although some patients undoubtedly benefit from rehabilitation, facilities are limited and, until more UK data are available, firm recommendations as to who should be treated cannot be made."22(pS13)

It is our view that the compilation (and regular update) of systematic reviews that address the management of COPD is highly desirable. Improved access to medical databases, either through the Cochrane Collaboration (an international initiative designed to prepare, maintain, and disseminate systematic reviews on health care37) or by peer-reviewed medical information on the Internet, may be instrumental in improving the quality of CPGs. This effort is to avoid the situation in which firm recommendations are issued years after the evidence is available.38 Such a resource document would provide professional organizations in the developed and developing world with the evidence to create their own guidelines in the context of available health care resources, attitudes, and beliefs by the physicians and patients. It would also be a valuable teaching instrument for physicians and nonphysician health professionals.

For patient care to be influenced, guidelines must be disseminated and implemented by those in practice. Their impact can then be evaluated. The lack of uniformity of the recommendations for many components of the management of COPD complicates the dissemination and implementation of comprehensive guidelines. At present, local implementation of guidelines for specific components of the management of COPD, such as the indications for home oxygen use or respiratory rehabilitation, would appear more promising.

The possibility that CPGs might be used to establish the "prevailing standard of care" and, by implication, to determine what is appropriate practice is of concern. Until now, in jurisdictions such as Canada and the United Kingdom, minimum acceptable standards of care have been determined from responsible customary practice, not from guidelines.39,40 In these countries, discrepancies between guidelines on COPD likely reflect the widespread variations in practice. It is, therefore, unlikely that such guidelines will influence the legal standard of care.39 We should nevertheless be mindful of the potential of guidelines to affect the clinical and financial resources allocated to the disease. In the United States, in a study41 of 259 malpractice claims between 1990 and 1992, CPGs were more often used for inculpatory purposes than for exculpatory purposes. In France, mandatory medical practice guidelines were introduced in 1994 as a way of containing costs and standardizing patient care. Physicians who do not comply with several CPGs (including guidelines targeting asthma and long-term oxygen therapy for chronic respiratory tract insufficiency) can be fined.42 Whether practice guidelines are used within a medicolegal context or as a teaching and resource instrument for those who provide or fund health care, they should meet the criterion of scientific quality.28

The purpose of this communication is not to endorse any particular management strategy for COPD, but rather to highlight that existing guidelines are not evidence-based. They vary in their recommendations for specific interventions and likely reflect the biases of selective experience rather than scientific knowledge. Practitioners, policy makers, and patients would benefit from an evidence-based resource document that summarized the literature and identified the gaps in our knowledge and the discrepancies between evidence and clinical practice. In addition to integrating evidence of effectiveness with local availability, guidelines should also address approaches to their implementation and an evaluation of the impact of their recommendations on COPD.

Accepted for publication July 28, 2000.

This study was supported by Glaxo Wellcome (Canada) Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, which was not otherwise involved in the preparation of the manuscript.

Corresponding author: Yves Lacasse, MD, MSc, Centre de Pneumologie L'Hôpital Laval, 2725 Chemin Ste-Foy, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada G1V 4G5 (e-mail: Yves.Lacasse@med.ulaval.ca)

Thom  TJ International comparisons in COPD mortality. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989;140(suppl)S27- S34
National Center for Health Statistics, Current Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 1993.  Hyattsville, Md National Center for Health Statistics1995;Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 190. USDHHS publication (PHS) 95-1518.
Lacasse  YBrooks  DGoldstein  RS Trends in the epidemiology of COPD in Canada, 1980 to 1995. Chest. 1999;116306- 313
Gulsvik  A Mortality in and prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in different parts of Europe. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 1999;54160- 162
Institute of Medicine, Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program.  Washington, DC National Academy Press1990;
Audet  AMGreenfield  SField  M Medical practice guidelines: current activities and future directions. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113709- 714
Worrall  GChaulk  PFreake  D The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. CMAJ. 1997;1561705- 1712
Hayward  RSAWilson  MCTunis  SRBass  EBGuyatt  GHEvidence-Based Medicine Working Group, Users' guides to the medical literature, VIII: how to use clinical practice guidelines: A: are the recommendations valid? JAMA. 1995;274570- 574
Graham  IDCalder  LAHebert  PCCarter  AOTetroe  JM A comparison of clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. In press.
Cluzeau  FALittlejohns  PGrimshaw  JMFeder  GMoran  SE Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;1121- 28
Canadian Thoracic Society Workshop Group, Guidelines for the assessment and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CMAJ. 1992;147420- 428
Figueroa Casas  JCAbbate  EMartelli  NAMazzei  JARaimondi  GRoncoroni  AJ Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Medicina (B Aires). 1994;54671- 696
European Respiratory Society Task Force, Optimal assessment and management of chronic obstructive disease. Eur Respir J. 1995;81398- 1420
Institute for Pharmacotherapy, University of Oslo, Guidelines for understanding and treating obstructive lung diseases. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995;115710- 713
Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, Guidelines for the management for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Mod Med Aust. 1995;38132- 146
Wettengel  RBönhing  WCegla  U  et al.  Recommendations of the German Respiratory Tract League for treatment of patients with chronic obstructive bronchitis and pulmonary emphysema. Med Klin. 1995;903- 7
American Thoracic Society, Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(suppl)S77- S120
Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery, Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic obstructive lung disease. Arch Bronconeumol. 1996;32285- 301
Leuenberger  PAnderhub  HPBrandli  O  et al.  Management 1997 of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1997;127766- 782
Not Available, Recommendations of the Polish Pthysiopneumonologic Society for diagnosis and treatment of chronic obstructive lung diseases [in Polish]. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 1997;65(suppl 2)3- 24
Society of Pneumology of French Language—1996, Recommendations for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Rev Mal Respir. 1997;14(suppl 2P)7- 91
The COPD Guidelines Group of the Standards of Care Committee of the British Thoracic Society, British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 1997;52(suppl 5)S1- S28
Working Group of the South African Pulmonology Society, Guidelines for the management of COPD. S Afr Med J. 1998;88999- 1010
Moreno  RBGonzalez  PG Ambulatory management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a consensus report. Rev Med Chil. 1999;127229- 234
Laitinen  LAKoskela  K Chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Finnish National Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment 1998-2007. Respir Med. 1999;93297- 332
Cooper  JDTrulock  EPTriantafillou  AN  et al.  Bilateral pneumectomy (volume reduction) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;109106- 119
Shaneyfelt  TMMayo-Smith  MFRothwangl  J Are guidelines following guidelines? the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 1999;2811900- 1905
Grimshaw  JFreemantle  NWallace  S  et al.  Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1995;455- 64
Antman  EMLau  JKupelnick  BMosteller  FChalmers  TC A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268240- 248
Cook  DJGiacomini  M The trials and tribulations of clinical practice guidelines. JAMA. 1999;2811950- 1951
Browman  GPLevine  MNMohide  EA  et al.  The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13502- 512
Grol  RDalhuijsen  JThomas  SVeld  CRutten  GMokkink  H Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998;317858- 861
Hayward  RSAWilson  MCTunis  SRGuyatt  GHMoore  KABass  EB Practice guidelines: what are internists looking for? J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11176- 178
Heffner  JEAitken  MGeist  LOsborne  MPhillips  YStrohl  K Attributes of ATS documents that guide clinical practice: recommendations of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Committee. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;562015- 2025
Cook  DJGreengold  NLEllrodt  AGWeingarten  SR The relationship between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127210- 216
Brooks  DLacasse  YGoldstein  RS Pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Canada: national survey. Can Respir J. 1999;655- 63
Chalmers  I The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703156- 163
Lau  JAntman  EMJimenez-Silva  JKupelnick  BMosteller  MChalmers  TC Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327248- 254
Jutras  D Clinical practice guidelines as legal norms. CMAJ. 1993;148905- 908
Hurwitz  B Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318661- 664
Hyams  ALBrandenburg  JALipsitz  SRShapiro  DWBrennan  TA Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122450- 455
Durand-Zaleski  IColin  CBlum-Boisgard  C An attempt to save money by using mandatory practice guidelines in France. BMJ. 1997;315943- 946

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Content of Practice Guidelines Related to the Overall Management of COPD*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Indications of Respiratory Rehabilitation (Including Exercise Training) According to 15 National Practice Guidelines on the Management of COPD*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Levels of Scientific Evidence About Therapeutic Interventions*

References

Thom  TJ International comparisons in COPD mortality. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989;140(suppl)S27- S34
National Center for Health Statistics, Current Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 1993.  Hyattsville, Md National Center for Health Statistics1995;Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 190. USDHHS publication (PHS) 95-1518.
Lacasse  YBrooks  DGoldstein  RS Trends in the epidemiology of COPD in Canada, 1980 to 1995. Chest. 1999;116306- 313
Gulsvik  A Mortality in and prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in different parts of Europe. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 1999;54160- 162
Institute of Medicine, Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program.  Washington, DC National Academy Press1990;
Audet  AMGreenfield  SField  M Medical practice guidelines: current activities and future directions. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113709- 714
Worrall  GChaulk  PFreake  D The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. CMAJ. 1997;1561705- 1712
Hayward  RSAWilson  MCTunis  SRBass  EBGuyatt  GHEvidence-Based Medicine Working Group, Users' guides to the medical literature, VIII: how to use clinical practice guidelines: A: are the recommendations valid? JAMA. 1995;274570- 574
Graham  IDCalder  LAHebert  PCCarter  AOTetroe  JM A comparison of clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. In press.
Cluzeau  FALittlejohns  PGrimshaw  JMFeder  GMoran  SE Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;1121- 28
Canadian Thoracic Society Workshop Group, Guidelines for the assessment and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CMAJ. 1992;147420- 428
Figueroa Casas  JCAbbate  EMartelli  NAMazzei  JARaimondi  GRoncoroni  AJ Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Medicina (B Aires). 1994;54671- 696
European Respiratory Society Task Force, Optimal assessment and management of chronic obstructive disease. Eur Respir J. 1995;81398- 1420
Institute for Pharmacotherapy, University of Oslo, Guidelines for understanding and treating obstructive lung diseases. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995;115710- 713
Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, Guidelines for the management for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Mod Med Aust. 1995;38132- 146
Wettengel  RBönhing  WCegla  U  et al.  Recommendations of the German Respiratory Tract League for treatment of patients with chronic obstructive bronchitis and pulmonary emphysema. Med Klin. 1995;903- 7
American Thoracic Society, Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(suppl)S77- S120
Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery, Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic obstructive lung disease. Arch Bronconeumol. 1996;32285- 301
Leuenberger  PAnderhub  HPBrandli  O  et al.  Management 1997 of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1997;127766- 782
Not Available, Recommendations of the Polish Pthysiopneumonologic Society for diagnosis and treatment of chronic obstructive lung diseases [in Polish]. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 1997;65(suppl 2)3- 24
Society of Pneumology of French Language—1996, Recommendations for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Rev Mal Respir. 1997;14(suppl 2P)7- 91
The COPD Guidelines Group of the Standards of Care Committee of the British Thoracic Society, British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 1997;52(suppl 5)S1- S28
Working Group of the South African Pulmonology Society, Guidelines for the management of COPD. S Afr Med J. 1998;88999- 1010
Moreno  RBGonzalez  PG Ambulatory management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a consensus report. Rev Med Chil. 1999;127229- 234
Laitinen  LAKoskela  K Chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Finnish National Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment 1998-2007. Respir Med. 1999;93297- 332
Cooper  JDTrulock  EPTriantafillou  AN  et al.  Bilateral pneumectomy (volume reduction) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;109106- 119
Shaneyfelt  TMMayo-Smith  MFRothwangl  J Are guidelines following guidelines? the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 1999;2811900- 1905
Grimshaw  JFreemantle  NWallace  S  et al.  Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1995;455- 64
Antman  EMLau  JKupelnick  BMosteller  FChalmers  TC A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268240- 248
Cook  DJGiacomini  M The trials and tribulations of clinical practice guidelines. JAMA. 1999;2811950- 1951
Browman  GPLevine  MNMohide  EA  et al.  The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13502- 512
Grol  RDalhuijsen  JThomas  SVeld  CRutten  GMokkink  H Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998;317858- 861
Hayward  RSAWilson  MCTunis  SRGuyatt  GHMoore  KABass  EB Practice guidelines: what are internists looking for? J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11176- 178
Heffner  JEAitken  MGeist  LOsborne  MPhillips  YStrohl  K Attributes of ATS documents that guide clinical practice: recommendations of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Committee. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;562015- 2025
Cook  DJGreengold  NLEllrodt  AGWeingarten  SR The relationship between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127210- 216
Brooks  DLacasse  YGoldstein  RS Pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Canada: national survey. Can Respir J. 1999;655- 63
Chalmers  I The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703156- 163
Lau  JAntman  EMJimenez-Silva  JKupelnick  BMosteller  MChalmers  TC Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327248- 254
Jutras  D Clinical practice guidelines as legal norms. CMAJ. 1993;148905- 908
Hurwitz  B Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318661- 664
Hyams  ALBrandenburg  JALipsitz  SRShapiro  DWBrennan  TA Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122450- 455
Durand-Zaleski  IColin  CBlum-Boisgard  C An attempt to save money by using mandatory practice guidelines in France. BMJ. 1997;315943- 946

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 22

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles