Cargando…

Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: In 2007, WHO established the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) to ensure that WHO guidelines adhere to the highest international standards. The GRC reviews guideline proposals and final guidelines. The objectives of this study were to examine the rates of and reasons for conditional appr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Porgo, Teegwendé V., Ferri, Mauricio, Norris, Susan L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5804092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0288-y
_version_ 1783298770370297856
author Porgo, Teegwendé V.
Ferri, Mauricio
Norris, Susan L.
author_facet Porgo, Teegwendé V.
Ferri, Mauricio
Norris, Susan L.
author_sort Porgo, Teegwendé V.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In 2007, WHO established the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) to ensure that WHO guidelines adhere to the highest international standards. The GRC reviews guideline proposals and final guidelines. The objectives of this study were to examine the rates of and reasons for conditional approval and non-approval of documents submitted for the first time to the GRC, and calculate the time intervals and numbers of submissions to achieve approval for documents conditionally approved or not approved at first submission. METHODS: All initial submissions to the GRC between 2014 and 2017 were examined. Data were extracted from the GRC’s records of written comments and discussions. RESULTS: Of a total of 85 proposals and 88 final guidelines, 32 (37.6%) proposals and 37 (42.0%) final guidelines were conditionally approved, and 15 (17.6%) proposals and 28 (31.8%) final guidelines were not. For both conditionally approved and not approved proposals, the most frequent reasons were suboptimal composition or inadequate description of the guideline contributor groups (in all proposals), followed by inadequate formulation of key questions (in 90.6% of conditionally approved proposals and all not approved proposals). For both conditionally approved and not approved final guidelines, the most frequent reasons were problems with recommendations (in all final guidelines), followed by inappropriate methods for evidence retrieval or an inadequate description thereof (in all conditionally approved final guidelines and 75.0% of not approved final guidelines). The median time to achieve approval was 2 months for proposals and 1–2 months for final guidelines. The median number of submissions was 2 for proposals and 2–2.5 for final guidelines. CONCLUSION: The GRC implements a rigorous quality assurance process and identifies problems with a significant percentage of initial submissions. WHO needs to continuously evaluate its guideline development processes to inform effective quality improvement measures and optimise the quality of its guidelines.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5804092
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58040922018-02-14 Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study Porgo, Teegwendé V. Ferri, Mauricio Norris, Susan L. Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: In 2007, WHO established the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) to ensure that WHO guidelines adhere to the highest international standards. The GRC reviews guideline proposals and final guidelines. The objectives of this study were to examine the rates of and reasons for conditional approval and non-approval of documents submitted for the first time to the GRC, and calculate the time intervals and numbers of submissions to achieve approval for documents conditionally approved or not approved at first submission. METHODS: All initial submissions to the GRC between 2014 and 2017 were examined. Data were extracted from the GRC’s records of written comments and discussions. RESULTS: Of a total of 85 proposals and 88 final guidelines, 32 (37.6%) proposals and 37 (42.0%) final guidelines were conditionally approved, and 15 (17.6%) proposals and 28 (31.8%) final guidelines were not. For both conditionally approved and not approved proposals, the most frequent reasons were suboptimal composition or inadequate description of the guideline contributor groups (in all proposals), followed by inadequate formulation of key questions (in 90.6% of conditionally approved proposals and all not approved proposals). For both conditionally approved and not approved final guidelines, the most frequent reasons were problems with recommendations (in all final guidelines), followed by inappropriate methods for evidence retrieval or an inadequate description thereof (in all conditionally approved final guidelines and 75.0% of not approved final guidelines). The median time to achieve approval was 2 months for proposals and 1–2 months for final guidelines. The median number of submissions was 2 for proposals and 2–2.5 for final guidelines. CONCLUSION: The GRC implements a rigorous quality assurance process and identifies problems with a significant percentage of initial submissions. WHO needs to continuously evaluate its guideline development processes to inform effective quality improvement measures and optimise the quality of its guidelines. BioMed Central 2018-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5804092/ /pubmed/29415735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0288-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Porgo, Teegwendé V.
Ferri, Mauricio
Norris, Susan L.
Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study
title Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study
title_full Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study
title_short Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study
title_sort common issues raised during the quality assurance process of who guidelines: a cross-sectional study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5804092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0288-y
work_keys_str_mv AT porgoteegwendev commonissuesraisedduringthequalityassuranceprocessofwhoguidelinesacrosssectionalstudy
AT ferrimauricio commonissuesraisedduringthequalityassuranceprocessofwhoguidelinesacrosssectionalstudy
AT norrissusanl commonissuesraisedduringthequalityassuranceprocessofwhoguidelinesacrosssectionalstudy