Quality and Strength of Evidence of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guidelines
Open Access
- 15 November 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Vol. 51 (10), 1147-1156
- https://doi.org/10.1086/656735
Abstract
Objective. To describe the distribution and temporal trends of the quality and strength of evidence supporting recommendations in the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) clinical practice guidelines. Methods. Guidelines either issued or endorsed by IDSA from March 1994 to July 2009 were evaluated using the IDSA-US Public Health Service Grading System. In this system, the letters A–E signify the strength of the recommendation, and numerals I–III indicate the quality of evidence supporting these recommendations. The distribution of the guideline recommendations among strength of recommendation and quality of evidence classes was quantified. Temporal changes between the first and current guideline version were evaluated. Results. Approximately one-half (median, 50.0%; interquartile range [IQR], 38.1%–58.6%) of the recommendations in the current guidelines are supported by level III evidence (derived from expert opinion). Evidence from observational studies (level II) supports 31% of recommendations (median, 30.9%; IQR, 23.3%–43.2%), whereas evidence based on ⩾1 randomized clinical trial (level I) constitutes 16% of the recommendations (median, 15.8%; IQR, 5.8%–28.3%). The strength of recommendation was mainly distributed among classes A (median, 41.5%; IQR, 28.7%–55.6%) and B (median, 40.3%; IQR, 27.1%–47.9%). Among guidelines with ⩾1 revised version, the recommendations moved proportionately toward more level I evidence (+12.4%). Consequently, there was a proportional increase in class A recommendations (+11.1%) with a decrease in class C recommendations (−23.5%). Conclusions. The IDSA guideline recommendations are primarily based on low-quality evidence derived from nonrandomized studies or expert opinion. These findings highlight the limitations of current clinical infectious diseases research that can provide high-quality evidence. There is an urgent need to support high-quality research to strengthen the evidence available for the formulation of guidelines.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- The GRADE System for Rating Clinical GuidelinesPLoS Medicine, 2009
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management Candidiasis: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of AmericaClinical Infectious Diseases, 2009
- Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation of Fever and Infection in Older Adult Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities: 2008 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of AmericaClinical Infectious Diseases, 2009
- Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: An updateHepatology, 2008
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sporotrichosis: 2007 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of AmericaClinical Infectious Diseases, 2007
- How Evidence-Based Are the Recommendations in Evidence-Based Guidelines?PLoS Medicine, 2007
- Chronic hepatitis BHepatology, 2007
- Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Guidelines for Developing an Institutional Program to Enhance Antimicrobial StewardshipClinical Infectious Diseases, 2007
- The Practice of Travel Medicine: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of AmericaClinical Infectious Diseases, 2006
- Quality of systematic reviews used in guidelines for oncology practiceAnnals of Oncology, 2006