Evaluation of the Level of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations Constituting the American Academy of Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Cross-Sectional Analysis
Clicks: 634
ID: 110425
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
80.6
/100
634 views
465 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #5 of 53 articles by views in jmir dermatology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
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 Dermatol 2020;3(1):e17370]
| Reference Key |
vassar2020jmirevaluation
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Matt Vassar; |
| Journal | jmir dermatology |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
doi:10.2196/17370
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.