New strategies will improve transparency and usefulness of clinical practice guidelines
After recent claims of bias in certain Australia’s clinical practice guidelines (CPG), a new set of strategies to achieve greater transparency in the formulation of CPG recommendations has been published in the Medical Journal of Australia.
Summarised by Dr Ian Scott from the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, and co-author, the strategies focus on combating conflicts of interest, enhancing the validity and strength of recommendations and ensuring involvement of end users and external stakeholders in CPG development.
“Enacting such policies aims to lend greater transparency and credibility to CPG, limit protracted and unhelpful interpretive debates, and promote wider use of CPG,” Dr Scott said.
CPG direct clinical practice and inform quality improvement programs by generating clinical standards and performance measures.
“Management of financial or intellectual conflicts of interest requires: full disclosure; limitations on industry or agency financial support during guideline development; a representative panel that includes conflict-free members; and only conflict-free panellists to be involved in drafting guideline recommendations,” he said.
“Guideline panels should consider adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system to assist in determining the validity and strength of recommendations.
“Guideline panels should also seek formal feedback from external stakeholders and end users.”
The Medical Journal of Australia is a publication of the Australian Medical Association.
The statements or opinions that are expressed in the MJA reflect the views of the authors and do not represent the official policy of the AMA unless that is so stated.
CONTACT: Dr Ian Scott 0412 668 472
