Quality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine (EMGO), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Published: September 2004

Study Design: Systematic review of clinical guidelines.

Objectives: To assess the methodologic quality of existing guidelines for the management of acute low back pain.

Summary Of Background Data: Guidelines are playing an increasingly important role in evidence-based practice. After publication of the Quebec Task Force in Canada in 1987 and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines in the United States in 1994, guidelines for acute low back pain were developed in many other countries. However, little is known about the methodologic quality of these guidelines.

Methods: Guidelines were selected by electronically searching MEDLINE and the Internet and through personal communication with experts in the field of low back pain research in primary care. The methodologic quality of the guidelines was assessed by two authors independently using the AGREE instrument.

Results: A total of 17 guidelines were included. Overall, the quality of reporting of guidelines was disappointing. Most guidelines clearly described the aim of the guideline and its target population, and most guideline development committees were multiprofessional. However, many other methodologic flaws were identified. More than half of the guidelines did not take patients' preferences into account, did not perform a pilot test among target users, did not clearly describe the methods of study identification and selection, did not include an external review, did not provide a procedure for updating, were not supported with tools for application, did not consider potential organizational barriers and cost implications, did not provide criteria for monitoring and audit, did not include recommendations for implementation strategies, and did not adequately record editorial independence and conflict of interest of the members. The diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the guidelines were largely similar.

Conclusions: The quality and transparency of the development process and the consistency in the reporting of primary care guidelines for low back pain need to be improved.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000137056.64166.51DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

low pain
16
guidelines
13
primary care
12
acute low
12
methodologic quality
12
care guidelines
8
guidelines acute
8
quality
6
low
5
quality primary
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!