Home » Evidence-Based Guideline Development Process

Evidence-Based Guideline Development Process

Review of Guidelines

Guideline Panel Review

Early drafts are reviewed by the panel’s Executive Committee, including the chair(s) and HSP liaison, and revised according to their recommendations before the full panel reviews the document prior to the final conference. The panel should concentrate on the following criteria when reviewing the guideline:

  • Is the material clinically relevant?
  • Are all the evidence review questions addressed?
  • Do the discussions and recommendations reflect the evidence?
  • Are the discussions and recommendations balanced and unbiased?
  • Are limitations of the evidence properly noted?
  • Do the recommendations flow from discussions?
  • Are the grades appropriate given the level of evidence?
  • Are the introduction and conclusion appropriate?
  • Is the methodology properly documented?
  • Are areas for future research included?
  • Are key words, abbreviations, tables, and all references included?

Further revisions are made after the final conference and with Executive Committee approval the manuscript is forwarded for ACCP reviews, as follows:

HSP Committee/NetWorks/Board of Regents Review

The review process is outlined in two algorithms specifically related to review of large, multiple chapter guidelines and smaller article-length guidelines. Once conflicts of interest have been vetted, approved reviewers from the appropriate clinical NetWorks, all HSP members, and the appointed reviewers representing the Board of Regents are sent the manuscripts. The NetWork members provide their comments to the HSP and Board of Regent reviewers who hold a call or meeting to discuss each section or chapter of the guidelines, including recommendations and grading. If conditionally approved, the manuscripts are returned to the authors for revision. Once approved by HSP and the Board of Regents, the guidelines are submitted to the journal. The editor in chief of the journal has the right to refuse publication. If publication is considered, several external content experts are requested to review the documents.

Reviewers should focus on the following criteria:

  • Is the document clinically relevant?
  • Is the document readable?
  • Does the discussion of the clinical question flow from the introduction of the document through to the conclusion of the document?
  • Are the discussions and recommendations supported by the evidence?
  • Are the discussions and recommendations balanced and unbiased?
  • Do the recommendations flow from the discussion?
  • Should this document receive approval to represent ACCP policy?
  • Were the HSP guideline methodology and the Instructions to Authors of CHEST followed?
  • Are the recommendations properly formatted according to HSP regulations?

The HSP Review Form should be used to facilitate this review.

Related Terms:
Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines
Resources

Guideline Ranking & Disclaimer

Rank
Definition
1 This guideline is new and represents the best available evidence at this time. It will be reviewed on an annual basis to determine if it remains current.
2 This guideline is reviewed on an annual basis and there have been new studies published since the guideline was developed. However, the Health and Science Policy (HSP) Committee determined that these studies are not sufficient to warrant changing the guideline at this time. The information contained in this guideline provides the user with the best evidence available at the time the guideline was published. Readers are encouraged to search the current literature as a supplement to using this guideline.
3 This guideline is reviewed on an annual basis. The HSP Committee determined that new studies have been published that warrant an update of the (fill in) chapter/section of this practice guideline. The HSP Committee also determined that the remainder of the chapters/sections does not require updating and these recommendations remain current.
4 This guideline is reviewed on an annual basis. The HSP Committee determined that new data are available that are sufficient to potentially change guideline recommendations and a full revision is warranted.
5 This guideline has been reviewed on an annual basis. The HSP Committee has decided it is outdated; however, it has been retained for historical and/or educational purposes. These guidelines should be used with caution for clinical decision-making purposes.

The evidence-based practice guidelines published by The American College of Chest Physicians (“ACCP”) incorporate data obtained from a comprehensive literature review of the most recent studies available at the time of publication. Guidelines are intended for general information only, are not medical advice, and do not replace professional medical care and physician advice, which always should be sought for any specific condition. Furthermore, guidelines may not be complete or accurate because new studies that may have become available late in the process of guideline development may not be incorporated into any particular guideline before it is disseminated. ACCP and its officers, regents, governors, executive committee, members and employees (the “ACCP Parties”) disclaim all liability for the accuracy or completeness of a guideline, and disclaim all warranties, express or implied. Guideline users always are urged to seek out newer information that might impact the diagnostic and treatment recommendations contained within a guideline. The ACCP Parties further disclaim all liability for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages) arising out of the use, inability to use, or the results of use of a guideline, any references used in a guideline, or the materials, information, or procedures contained in a guideline, based on any legal theory whatsoever and whether or not there was advice of the possibility of such damages.