4.6 Article

On the development of the European S3 guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris: structure and challenges

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2010.03671.x

Keywords

European evidence-based guidelines; European S3 guidelines; psoriasis vulgaris; systemic therapy

Categories

Funding

  1. EDF
  2. EADV
  3. dEBM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The development of evidence based guidelines is a demanding and time consuming process. Therefore it is important to share the knowledge and discuss the structure of these guidelines in detail. Objectives To present a method report on the development process of the European evidence based guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris with the aim to offer guidance to other guidelines groups with lesser experience and to critically appraise the methodology of the guidelines development process. Methods The guidelines are based on the previously evaluated literature from three European national evidence based guidelines and an additional systematic search and evaluation of new literature. Further steps included a structured consensus conference and a DELPHI procedure to develop the recommendations, as well as several internal and external reviews. All steps were coordinated by the Division of evidence based medicine in cooperation with a group of methodologists. Results A total of 114 studies were included, serving as base for the efficacy chapters of the intervention. The recommendations, based on the efficacy and the level of evidence of the included studies were discussed and finally consented by the guidelines group. After subsequent reviews the guidelines were presented to the European Dermatology Forum, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and Union Europeenne des Medicins Specialistes for approval and published in October 2009. Conclusion The development of European evidence based guidelines requires a coordinated structure which can be achieved by the integration of an experienced group of methodologists. Nevertheless further improvements are imaginable and might be considered for an update or other European evidence based guidelines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available