Practice Guidelines Grading Systems
Different Grading Systems to Grade Evidence and Recommendations in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Does it Influence the Clinicians´ Behavior?
1 other identifier
interventional
216
1 country
1
Brief Summary
Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. They are developed to give a recommendation based on the best evidence available. Through a randomized trial, the investigators intend to provide information about which of the four grading systems most used today to grade evidence and recommendations in CPGs, could change physician´s behavior towards a common clinical situation in daily practice.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P75+ for not_applicable
Started Aug 2009
Shorter than P25 for not_applicable
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
July 13, 2009
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
July 16, 2009
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
August 1, 2009
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
October 1, 2009
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
November 1, 2009
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
January 13, 2010
CompletedJanuary 20, 2010
November 1, 2009
2 months
July 13, 2009
December 9, 2009
January 12, 2010
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Change in Behavior in Physicians Attitude Towards a Decision to Give a Medication
A fictitious clinical case of a child with acute diarrhea was presented. The physician read the case and then answered the question "would you recommend racecadotril to this patient?" A zero to 10 visual-analog scale and a Likert scale were used to measure the decision of the physician related to the clinical case presented (from zero="definitely no" to 10="definitely yes"). Mean differences before-after and among groups were measured on the 10 centimeters scale.
One day
Study Arms (4)
GRADE system
OTHERA clinical recommendation built and graded with the GRADE working group system
SIGN grading system
OTHERA clinical recommendation built and graded with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network system
NICE grading system
OTHERA clinical recommendation built and graded with National Institute of Clinical Excellence grading system
CEBM-Oxford
OTHERA clinical recommendation built and graded with the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system
Interventions
Graded recommendation in reference to a clinical condition written as it would be in a clinical practice guideline
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Pediatricians and residents in pediatrics
You may not qualify if:
- Less than six months in clinical practice
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Escuela de Medicina y Biotecnologia del ITESM
Monterrey, Nuevo León, 64710, Mexico
Related Publications (1)
Cuello Garcia CA, Pacheco Alvarado KP, Perez Gaxiola G. Grading recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: randomised experimental evaluation of four different systems. Arch Dis Child. 2011 Aug;96(8):723-8. doi: 10.1136/adc.2010.199307. Epub 2011 May 19.
PMID: 21596725DERIVED
Limitations and Caveats
The outcome was measured in only one topic and could be not expanded to other areas of pediatrics or even other specialties in medicine.
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Carlos A. Cuello-García
- Organization
- ITESM
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Carlos A Cuello-Garcia, MD
Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterey
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- Yes
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
July 13, 2009
First Posted
July 16, 2009
Study Start
August 1, 2009
Primary Completion
October 1, 2009
Study Completion
November 1, 2009
Last Updated
January 20, 2010
Results First Posted
January 13, 2010
Record last verified: 2009-11