4.7 Article

The Development of Living, Rapid Practice Points: Summary of Methods From the Scientific Medical Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians

期刊

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 174, 期 8, 页码 1126-+

出版社

AMER COLL PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.7326/M20-7641

关键词

-

资金

  1. ACP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) aims to provide evidence-based clinical advice through rapid systematic review, use of the GRADE method, and strict policies on disclosure of interests, to address timely key questions for decision-making.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) began developing practice points to provide clinical advice based on the best available evidence for the public, patients, clinicians, and public health professionals. As one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines, ACP continues to lead and advance the science of evidence-based medicine by implementing new methods to rapidly publish practice points and maintain them as living advice that regularly assesses and incorporates new evidence. The overarching aim of practice points is to answer targeted key questions for which there is a timely need to synthesize evidence for decision making. The SMPC believes these methods can potentially be adapted to address various clinical and public health topics beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. This article presents an overview of the SMPC's living, rapid practice points development process, which includes a rapid systematic review, use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method, use of stringent policies on the disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest, incorporating a public (nonclinician) perspective, and maintenance of the documents as living through ongoing surveillance and synthesis of new evidence as it emerges.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据