Quality of clinical practice guidelines approved in Peru between 2015 and 2017
Revista de la Facultad de Medicina(2020)
Abstract
espanolIntroduccion. El diagnostico y el manejo de pacientes con la misma condicion medica pueden variar de manera significativa de profesional a profesional. Una manera de controlar esta variacion y promover un manejo basado en evidencias es mediante el uso de guias de practica clinica (GPC). Objetivos. Describir las caracteristicas de las GPC aprobadas por entidades publicas de salud de Peru entre julio de 2015 y setiembre de 2017. Materiales y metodos. Se realizo un estudio transversal descriptivo donde se evaluaron los siguientes criterios de calidad de las GPC: panel de expertos que elaboro la guia; protocolos respecto a los sistemas de identificacion, recogida y evaluacion de la evidencia, y nivel de evidencia que sustenta cada recomendacion. Resultados. Se incluyeron 558 GPC, de las cuales 65.8% no contaba con autor explicito o solo describia un autor y no una lista, 81.5% no contaba con citas ni referencias bibliograficas y 97.7% no sustentaba de forma clara la elaboracion de sus recomendaciones. Conclusiones. La mayoria de las GPC no cumplieron los criterios de calidad evaluados en el presente estudio, por tanto es necesario mejorar las habilidades de los profesionales de la salud en Peru para elaborar GPC de calidad. EnglishIntroduction: The diagnosis and management of patients with the same medical condition may vary significantly depending on the treating physician. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are used to reduce this variation and to promote evidence-based management in clinical practice. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of the CPGs adopted by public health institutions in Peru from July 2015 to September 2017. Materials and methods: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. The following quality criteria were assessed in each CPG: the panel of experts responsible for the development of the CPG; protocols regarding the evidence identification, collection and assessment systems; and the level of evidence supporting each recommendation. Results: 558 CPGs were included, of which 65.8% did not provide information on having an explicit author or only listed one author. In addition, 81.5% did not have citations, nor a reference list, and 97.7% did not clearly provide supporting evidence on how the recommendations were reached. Conclusions: Most of the CPGs did not meet the quality criteria assessed in the present study, thus it is necessary to improve the skills of Peruvian health professionals to develop quality CPGs that adjust to their local context.
MoreTranslated text
Key words
Practice Guideline,Evidence-Based Practice,Practice Guidelines as Topic
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
![](https://originalfileserver.aminer.cn/sys/aminer/pubs/mrt_preview.jpeg)
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined