17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Scientific Evidence Underlying the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsʼ Practice Bulletins :

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Clinical guidelines are an important source of guidance for clinicians. Few studies have examined the quality of scientific data underlying evidence-based guidelines. We examined the quality of evidence that underlies the recommendations made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College).

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines.

          The joint cardiovascular practice guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have become important documents for guiding cardiology practice and establishing benchmarks for quality of care. To describe the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines and the distribution of recommendations across classes of recommendations and levels of evidence. Data from all ACC/AHA practice guidelines issued from 1984 to September 2008 were abstracted by personnel in the ACC Science and Quality Division. Fifty-three guidelines on 22 topics, including a total of 7196 recommendations, were abstracted. The number of recommendations and the distribution of classes of recommendation (I, II, and III) and levels of evidence (A, B, and C) were determined. The subset of guidelines that were current as of September 2008 was evaluated to describe changes in recommendations between the first and current versions as well as patterns in levels of evidence used in the current versions. Among guidelines with at least 1 revision or update by September 2008, the number of recommendations increased from 1330 to 1973 (+48%) from the first to the current version, with the largest increase observed in use of class II recommendations. Considering the 16 current guidelines reporting levels of evidence, only 314 recommendations of 2711 total are classified as level of evidence A (median, 11%), whereas 1246 (median, 48%) are level of evidence C. Level of evidence significantly varies across categories of guidelines (disease, intervention, or diagnostic) and across individual guidelines. Recommendations with level of evidence A are mostly concentrated in class I, but only 245 of 1305 class I recommendations have level of evidence A (median, 19%). Recommendations issued in current ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinion. The proportion of recommendations for which there is no conclusive evidence is also growing. These findings highlight the need to improve the process of writing guidelines and to expand the evidence base from which clinical practice guidelines are derived.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery.

            (2010)
            Trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery (TOLAC)* provides women who desire a vaginal delivery with the possibility of achieving that goal--a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC). In addition to fulfilling a patient's preference for vaginal delivery, at an individual level VBAC is associated with decreased maternal morbidity and a decreased risk of complications in future pregnancies. At a population level, VBAC also is associated with a decrease in the overall cesarean delivery rate (1, 2). Although TOLAC is appropriate for many women with a history of a cesarean delivery, several factors increase the likelihood of a failed trial of labor, which compared with VBAC, is associated with increased maternal and perinatal morbidity (3-5). Assessment of individual risks and the likelihood of VBAC is, therefore, important in determining who are appropriate candidates for TOLAC. The purpose of this document is to review the risks and benefits of TOLAC in various clinical situations and provide practical guidelines for managing and counseling patients who will give birth after a previous cesarean delivery.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests.

              A group of 146 experts representing 29 organizations and professional societies met September 18-19, 2006, in Bethesda, MD, to develop revised evidence-based, consensus guidelines for managing women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Recommendations for managing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) are essentially unchanged. Changes were made for managing these conditions in adolescents for whom cytological follow-up for 2 years was approved. Recommendations for managing high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and atypical glandular cells (AGC) also underwent only minor modifications. More emphasis is placed on immediate screen-and-treat approaches for HSIL. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is incorporated into the management of AGC after their initial evaluation with colposcopy and endometrial sampling. The 2004 Interim Guidance for HPV testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening in women 30 years of age and older was formally adopted with only very minor modifications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0029-7844
                2011
                September 2011
                : 118
                : 3
                : 505-512
                Article
                10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182267f43
                21826038
                09b8d6b8-35d1-477f-8ee3-a3b0daf86e35
                © 2011
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article