Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Evidence and guidelines COMEP
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Evidence and guidelines COMEP

154

Published on

Evidence and guidelines COMEP

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
154
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This slide gives a good clear statement on the purpose of guidelines.
  • 1. overview of what SIGN is 2. The methodology we use 3. The roles of Programme Managers in supporting guideline development groups and the roles of guideline development group members themselves
  • 5
  • So what makes a good clinical guideline. How can we tell the good from the bad. This is one area where we definitely cant judge a book by its cover. Very poor quality guidelines from highly respected organisations. Fortunately a tool exists to allow us to evaluate the quality of clinical guidelines. The agree tool stands for appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation.
  • These points probably sound obvious but if you were to examine the development process of the majority of guidelines produced to date you would probably not be able to demonstrate adhherence to these key principles
  • SIGN Guidelines are just that guidelines so unlike e.g. NICE guideline that are mandatory, SIGN guidelines allow for clinical judgement
  • Another aspect of group composition is that of skill mix. Ideally aim for a mix of these characteristics in our groups.
  • At SIGN All reccs are directly linked to the evidence. If there is one thing you are going to take away Id like you to be clear about this.as there are a lot of misunderstanding s about this point. The grade of recc in a sign guideline are based on strength of evidence rather than degree of clinical effect.
  • The peer review process starts with the National Open meeting which takes place about a year after the group starts work. The development group present their draft to an multidisciplinary audience of their peers who are actively involved in giving feedback concerns criticism and advice to the group either on the day or in written responses. The gl is also on the website for a limited period at this time – if interested in urinary incontinece please look at this and feed back comments please.
  • After the national meeting the group refines the draft and the next stage of peer review starts. Copies of the draft are sent to around 30 experts world wide for input and all comments are addressed. An in house editorial team makes sure all reviewers comments have been adequately addressed and provides a quality control function prior to publication.
  • ×