Connect
MJA
MJA

Australian clinical practice guidelines — a national study

Heather A Buchan, Kay C Currie, Emma J Lourey and Geraint R Duggan
Med J Aust 2010; 192 (9): 490-494.

Summary

Objective: To identify the number of Australian clinical practice guidelines, and their key characteristics.

Design, setting and participants: Clinical practice guidelines that were produced or reviewed between 2003 and 2007 for use in Australia at a national or state level were identified by approaching health-related organisations and searching websites. Their characteristics were abstracted from the published guidelines and publicly accessible accompanying material.

Main outcome measures: Number of clinical practice guidelines, key health areas, documentation of evidence search and appraisal processes, numbers and types of guideline producers and funders, presence of competing interest statements.

Results: 313 clinical practice guidelines were identified, of which 91 (29%) were evidence-documented, either in the guideline itself or in an accessible accompanying document. Over 80 guideline producers were identified. Federal or state government agencies produced or contributed funding to 53% of the guidelines (167/313); 28% of the guidelines supported by government agencies (46/167) were categorised as evidence-documented. A review date was specified in 52% of evidence-documented guidelines (47/91), but a third of these had passed the review date at the time of our study and no updated guidelines were found. Areas with a large burden of disease did not necessarily receive government support for guideline development. Most guidelines (246/313; 79%) made no mention of possible competing interests of members of the guideline development group.

Conclusions: A more coordinated approach to identifying national priorities for developing and updating clinical practice guidelines may produce better returns on investment in Australian guidelines. In addition, more transparency in documenting the guideline development process, including details on competing interests, is needed.

  • Heather A Buchan1
  • Kay C Currie2
  • Emma J Lourey3
  • Geraint R Duggan4

  • National Institute of Clinical Studies, National Health and Medical Research Council, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: emma.lourey@nhmrc.gov.au

Acknowledgements: 

We thank Therapeutic Guidelines Limited for providing NICS with free access to their guidelines, the Joanna Briggs Institute for providing NICS with free access to literature reviews referenced in their best practice series, Lauren Wisniewski for helping to build the guideline database, Vivienne Bernath for assisting with the literature and website searches, Natasha Gayfer for assisting with screening the guidelines, and Annette Lenstra and Agnes Wilson for assisting with assessing the guidelines. This study was funded by the NHMRC.

Competing interests:

The authors are employed by the NHMRC. Heather Buchan has chaired a panel that reviewed the CARI (Caring for Australasians with Renal Impairment) guideline program.

  • 1. National Health and Medical Research Council. A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC, 1999.
  • 2. Menendez R, Torres A, Zalacain R, et al. Guidelines for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: predictors of adherence and outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 172: 757-762.
  • 3. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Association between performance measures and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with heart failure. JAMA 2007; 297: 61-70.
  • 4. Du Pen SL, Du Pen AR, Polissar N, et al. Implementing guidelines for cancer pain management: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 361-370.
  • 5. Ward JE, Grieco V. Why we need guidelines for guidelines: a study of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in Australia. Med J Aust 1996; 165: 574-576.
  • 6. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Inclusion Criteria. http://www.guideline.gov/submit/inclusion.aspx (accessed Dec 2008).
  • 7. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of scientific literature. Canberra: NHMRC, 2000.
  • 8. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to present the evidence for consumers: preparation of consumer publications. Canberra: NHMRC, 2000.
  • 9. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to put evidence into practice: implementation and dissemination strategies. Canberra: NHMRC, 2000.
  • 10. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: NHMRC, 2000.
  • 11. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to compare the costs and benefits: evaluation of the economic evidence. Canberra: NHMRC, 2001.
  • 12. National Health and Medical Research Council. Using socioeconomic evidence in clinical practice guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC, 2003.
  • 13. Gupta L, Ward JE, Hayward RS. Clinical practice guidelines in general practice: a national survey of recall, attitudes and impact. Med J Aust 1997; 166: 69-72.
  • 14. Boyd EA, Bero LA. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 4. Managing conflicts of interests. Health Res Policy Syst 2006; 4: 16.
  • 15. Van Der Weyden MB. Doctors and the pharmaceutical industry: time for a national policy [editorial]? Med J Aust 2009; 190: 407-408. <MJA full text>
  • 16. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 2002; 287: 612-617.
  • 17. Van Der Weyden MB. Clinical practice guidelines: time to move the debate from the how to the who [editorial]. Med J Aust 2002; 176: 304-305.
  • 18. Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington: National Academies Press, 2009. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12598&page=R1 (accessed Mar 2010).
  • 19. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA 2001; 286: 1461-1467.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.