Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development—A Survey of 585 Recommendations

Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen, Marie-Louise Kirkegaard Mikkelsen, Anja Ussing, Karen Christina Walker, Jeanett Friis Rohde, Henning Keinke Andersen, Simon Tarp and Mina Nicole Händel
Additional contact information
Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
Marie-Louise Kirkegaard Mikkelsen: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
Anja Ussing: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
Karen Christina Walker: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
Jeanett Friis Rohde: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
Henning Keinke Andersen: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
Simon Tarp: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
Mina Nicole Händel: The Danish Health Authority, Islands Brygge 67, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 2, 1-10

Abstract: The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.

Keywords: Cochrane; systematic review; GRADE; clinical practice guideline; core outcome set (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/685/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/685/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:2:p:685-:d:720104

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().