Use of evidence in WHO recommendations

被引:155
作者
Oxman, Andrew D.
Lavis, John N.
Fretheim, Atle
机构
[1] Norwegian Knowledge Ctr Hlth Serv, N-0130 Oslo, Norway
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Polit Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60675-8
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background WHO regulations, dating back to 1951, emphasise the role of expert opinion in the development of recommendations. However, the organisations guidelines, approved in 2003, emphasise the use of systematic reviews for evidence of effects, processes that allow for the explicit incorporation of other types of information (including values), and evidence-informed dissemination and implementation strategies. We examined the use of evidence, particularly evidence of effects, in recommendations developed by WHO departments. Methods We interviewed department directors (or their delegates) at WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, and reviewed a sample of the recommendation-containing reports that were discussed in the interviews (as well as related background documentation). Two individuals independently analysed the interviews and reviewed key features of the reports and background documentation. Findings Systematic reviews and concise summaries of findings are rarely used for developing recommendations. Instead, processes usually rely heavily on experts in a particular specialty, rather than representatives of those who will have to live with the recommendations or on experts in particular methodological areas. Interpretation Progress in the development, adaptation, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations for member states will need leadership, the resources necessary for WHO to undertake these processes in a transparent and defensible way, and close attention to the current and emerging research literature related to these processes.
引用
收藏
页码:1883 / 1889
页数:7
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2006, HEALTH RES POLICY SY, DOI DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-4-13
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, EIPGPEEQC20031 WHO
[3]   A COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF METAANALYSES OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CLINICAL EXPERTS - TREATMENTS FOR MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION [J].
ANTMAN, EM ;
LAU, J ;
KUPELNICK, B ;
MOSTELLER, F ;
CHALMERS, TC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 268 (02) :240-248
[4]   Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography - Do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other? [J].
Ayanian, JZ ;
Landrum, MB ;
Normand, SLT ;
Guadagnoli, E ;
McNeil, BJ .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1998, 338 (26) :1896-1904
[5]   Effect of specialty and nationality on panel judgments of the appropriateness of coronary revascularization:: A pilot study [J].
Bernstein, SJ ;
Lázaro, P ;
Fitch, K ;
Aguilar, MD ;
Kahan, JP .
MEDICAL CARE, 2001, 39 (05) :513-520
[6]   Towards evidence-based clinical practice:: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs [J].
Burgers, JS ;
Grol, R ;
Klazinga, NS ;
Mäkelä, M ;
Zaat, J .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2003, 15 (01) :31-45
[8]  
Cluzeau F, 2003, QUAL SAF HEALTH CARE, V12, P18
[9]  
CLYER AJ, 2006, EVIDENCE POLICY, V2, P357
[10]   Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study [J].
Devereaux, PJ ;
Anderson, DR ;
Gardner, MJ ;
Putnam, W ;
Flowerdew, GJ ;
Brownell, BF ;
Nagpal, S ;
Cox, JL .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7323) :1218-1221