Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal reviews and clinical practice guidelines for newborns in Denmark a cross sectional study

Jesper Brok, Gorm Greisen, Lars P Madsen, Karen Tilma, Jan Faerk, Klaus Børch, Ester Garne, Henrik T Christensen, Hristo Stanchev, Thorkild Jacobsen, Jens P Nielsen, Tine Brink Henriksen, Christian Gluud

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical practice guidelines in Denmark. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of clinical guidelines for newborn infants. Materials:All Cochrane neonatal reviews and Danish local clinical guidelines for newborn infants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The recommendations from the Cochrane reviews and local neonatal guidelines were compared and classified as being in agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement. Guideline authors were asked whether Cochrane reviews had been considered during guideline development and reasons for disagreements. Heterogeneity among departments was assessed. RESULTS: 173 interventions evaluated in Cochrane neonatal reviews were included. All 17 Danish neonatal departments agreed to participate, but only 14 (82%) delivered data. Agreement between reviews and guidelines was observed for a median of 132 interventions (76%) (range 129 to 134), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) (range 29 to 33), and disagreement for 10 interventions (6%) (range 8 to 13) (Kappa = 0.56, range 0.53 to 0.59). Most of the latter 10 interventions were not recommended in the reviews but in the guidelines. The reasons for disagreement were numerous; usage of evidence with higher bias risks than randomised trials in guidelines development was the most frequent one. Cochrane reviews were rarely (10%) used during guideline development. Nine guideline topics (5%) revealed diversity among the departments' recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is good agreement between Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines in Denmark. The disagreements are few. Cochrane reviews were rarely used for guideline development. Guideline heterogeneity among neonatal departments seems moderate.
Original languageEnglish
JournalArchives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition
ISSN1359-2998
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24. Sep 2007

Fingerprint

Denmark
Practice Guidelines
Cross-Sectional Studies
Newborn Infant
Guidelines

Cite this

Brok, Jesper ; Greisen, Gorm ; Madsen, Lars P ; Tilma, Karen ; Faerk, Jan ; Børch, Klaus ; Garne, Ester ; Christensen, Henrik T ; Stanchev, Hristo ; Jacobsen, Thorkild ; Nielsen, Jens P ; Henriksen, Tine Brink ; Gluud, Christian. / Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal reviews and clinical practice guidelines for newborns in Denmark a cross sectional study. In: Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2007.
@article{3ed6b430d0f711dcb2ba000ea68e967b,
title = "Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal reviews and clinical practice guidelines for newborns in Denmark a cross sectional study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical practice guidelines in Denmark. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of clinical guidelines for newborn infants. Materials:All Cochrane neonatal reviews and Danish local clinical guidelines for newborn infants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The recommendations from the Cochrane reviews and local neonatal guidelines were compared and classified as being in agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement. Guideline authors were asked whether Cochrane reviews had been considered during guideline development and reasons for disagreements. Heterogeneity among departments was assessed. RESULTS: 173 interventions evaluated in Cochrane neonatal reviews were included. All 17 Danish neonatal departments agreed to participate, but only 14 (82{\%}) delivered data. Agreement between reviews and guidelines was observed for a median of 132 interventions (76{\%}) (range 129 to 134), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18{\%}) (range 29 to 33), and disagreement for 10 interventions (6{\%}) (range 8 to 13) (Kappa = 0.56, range 0.53 to 0.59). Most of the latter 10 interventions were not recommended in the reviews but in the guidelines. The reasons for disagreement were numerous; usage of evidence with higher bias risks than randomised trials in guidelines development was the most frequent one. Cochrane reviews were rarely (10{\%}) used during guideline development. Nine guideline topics (5{\%}) revealed diversity among the departments' recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is good agreement between Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines in Denmark. The disagreements are few. Cochrane reviews were rarely used for guideline development. Guideline heterogeneity among neonatal departments seems moderate.",
author = "Jesper Brok and Gorm Greisen and Madsen, {Lars P} and Karen Tilma and Jan Faerk and Klaus B{\o}rch and Ester Garne and Christensen, {Henrik T} and Hristo Stanchev and Thorkild Jacobsen and Nielsen, {Jens P} and Henriksen, {Tine Brink} and Christian Gluud",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1136/adc.2007.118000",
language = "English",
journal = "Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition",
issn = "1359-2998",
publisher = "B M J Group",

}

Brok, J, Greisen, G, Madsen, LP, Tilma, K, Faerk, J, Børch, K, Garne, E, Christensen, HT, Stanchev, H, Jacobsen, T, Nielsen, JP, Henriksen, TB & Gluud, C 2007, 'Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal reviews and clinical practice guidelines for newborns in Denmark a cross sectional study', Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.118000

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal reviews and clinical practice guidelines for newborns in Denmark a cross sectional study. / Brok, Jesper; Greisen, Gorm; Madsen, Lars P; Tilma, Karen; Faerk, Jan; Børch, Klaus; Garne, Ester; Christensen, Henrik T; Stanchev, Hristo; Jacobsen, Thorkild; Nielsen, Jens P; Henriksen, Tine Brink; Gluud, Christian.

In: Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 24.09.2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal reviews and clinical practice guidelines for newborns in Denmark a cross sectional study

AU - Brok, Jesper

AU - Greisen, Gorm

AU - Madsen, Lars P

AU - Tilma, Karen

AU - Faerk, Jan

AU - Børch, Klaus

AU - Garne, Ester

AU - Christensen, Henrik T

AU - Stanchev, Hristo

AU - Jacobsen, Thorkild

AU - Nielsen, Jens P

AU - Henriksen, Tine Brink

AU - Gluud, Christian

PY - 2007/9/24

Y1 - 2007/9/24

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical practice guidelines in Denmark. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of clinical guidelines for newborn infants. Materials:All Cochrane neonatal reviews and Danish local clinical guidelines for newborn infants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The recommendations from the Cochrane reviews and local neonatal guidelines were compared and classified as being in agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement. Guideline authors were asked whether Cochrane reviews had been considered during guideline development and reasons for disagreements. Heterogeneity among departments was assessed. RESULTS: 173 interventions evaluated in Cochrane neonatal reviews were included. All 17 Danish neonatal departments agreed to participate, but only 14 (82%) delivered data. Agreement between reviews and guidelines was observed for a median of 132 interventions (76%) (range 129 to 134), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) (range 29 to 33), and disagreement for 10 interventions (6%) (range 8 to 13) (Kappa = 0.56, range 0.53 to 0.59). Most of the latter 10 interventions were not recommended in the reviews but in the guidelines. The reasons for disagreement were numerous; usage of evidence with higher bias risks than randomised trials in guidelines development was the most frequent one. Cochrane reviews were rarely (10%) used during guideline development. Nine guideline topics (5%) revealed diversity among the departments' recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is good agreement between Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines in Denmark. The disagreements are few. Cochrane reviews were rarely used for guideline development. Guideline heterogeneity among neonatal departments seems moderate.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical practice guidelines in Denmark. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of clinical guidelines for newborn infants. Materials:All Cochrane neonatal reviews and Danish local clinical guidelines for newborn infants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The recommendations from the Cochrane reviews and local neonatal guidelines were compared and classified as being in agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement. Guideline authors were asked whether Cochrane reviews had been considered during guideline development and reasons for disagreements. Heterogeneity among departments was assessed. RESULTS: 173 interventions evaluated in Cochrane neonatal reviews were included. All 17 Danish neonatal departments agreed to participate, but only 14 (82%) delivered data. Agreement between reviews and guidelines was observed for a median of 132 interventions (76%) (range 129 to 134), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) (range 29 to 33), and disagreement for 10 interventions (6%) (range 8 to 13) (Kappa = 0.56, range 0.53 to 0.59). Most of the latter 10 interventions were not recommended in the reviews but in the guidelines. The reasons for disagreement were numerous; usage of evidence with higher bias risks than randomised trials in guidelines development was the most frequent one. Cochrane reviews were rarely (10%) used during guideline development. Nine guideline topics (5%) revealed diversity among the departments' recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is good agreement between Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines in Denmark. The disagreements are few. Cochrane reviews were rarely used for guideline development. Guideline heterogeneity among neonatal departments seems moderate.

U2 - 10.1136/adc.2007.118000

DO - 10.1136/adc.2007.118000

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 17893123

JO - Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition

JF - Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition

SN - 1359-2998

ER -