4.2 Article

Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Prehospital Evidence-Based Guidelines

Journal

PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 121-130

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2022.2142992

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evidence-based guidelines are increasingly being published to inform the EMS community, but their quality varies. This can negatively impact dissemination, education, and implementation efforts. This article describes the current state of published guidelines, provides a description of key elements and methods to assess their quality, and offers recommendations for improving evidence evaluation, guideline development, and reporting.
Evidence-based guidelines that provide recommendations for clinical care or operations are increasingly being published to inform the EMS community. The quality of evidence evaluation and methodological rigor undertaken to develop and publish these recommendations vary. This can negatively affect dissemination, education, and implementation efforts. Guideline developers and end users could be better informed by efforts across medical specialties to improve the quality of guidelines, including the use of specific criteria that have been identified within the highest quality guidelines. In this special contribution, we aim to describe the current state of published guidelines available to the EMS community informed by two recent systematic reviews of existing prehospital evidenced based guidelines (EBGs). We further aim to provide a description of key elements of EBGs, methods that can be used to assess their quality, and concrete recommendations for guideline developers to improve the quality of evidence evaluation, guideline development, and reporting. Finally, we outline six key recommendations for improving prehospital EBGs, informed by systematic reviews of prehospital guidelines performed by the Prehospital Guidelines Consortium.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available