Health and Science Policy and Evidence-Based Medicine

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.

3300 Dundee Road • Northbrook, Illinois 60062-2348 • (847) 498-1400 • (800) 343-2227
Copyright ©1999-2008 American College of Chest Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
ACCP Privacy Policy | ACCP Web Site Terms of Use