An opportunity to emphasize the relevance of laboratory medicine

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are recommendations based on a systematic review of scientific evidence that are intended to help healthcare professionals and patients make the best clinical decisions. CPGs must be evidence-based and are designed by multidisciplinary teams. The purpo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Santamaría González, María, Ruiz Mínguez, María Ángels, Arrebola Ramírez, María Monsalud, Filella Pla, Xavier, Torrejón Martínez, María José, Morell García, Daniel, Castaño López, Miguel Ángel, Allué Palacín, Juan Antonio, Albaladejo Otón, María Dolores, Giménez Gómez, Nuria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: De Gruyter 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37362412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/almed-2021-0029
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are recommendations based on a systematic review of scientific evidence that are intended to help healthcare professionals and patients make the best clinical decisions. CPGs must be evidence-based and are designed by multidisciplinary teams. The purpose of this study is to assess the topics related to the clinical laboratory addressed in CPGs and evaluate the involvement of laboratory professionals in the CPG development process. METHODS: A total of 16 CPGs recommended by the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine and/or retrieved from PubMed-Medline were included. A review of the information provided in CPGs about 80 topics related to the clinical laboratory was performed. The authorship of laboratory professionals was assessed. RESULTS: On average, the 16 CPGs addressed 49% (standard deviation [SD]: 11%) of the topics evaluated in relation to the clinical laboratory. By order of frequency, CPGs contained information about 69% of postanalytical variables (SD: 20%); 52% of preanalytical variables (SD: 11%); and 43% of the analytical variables studied (SD: 18%). Finally, half the CPGs included a laboratory professional among its authors. CONCLUSIONS: CPGs frequently failed to provide relevant laboratory-related information. Laboratory professionals were co-authors in only half the CPGs. There is scope for improvement, and laboratory professionals should be included in multidisciplinary teams involved in the development of CPGs.