4.6 Article

Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 63-67

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.69

关键词

evidence synthesis; genomic medicine; guideline development

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R24GM61374, U01GM 92666, U01HL 105198]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [U01HL105198] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [U01GM092666] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: With the accelerated implementation of genomic medicine, health-care providers will depend heavily on professional guidelines and recommendations. Because genomics affects many diseases across the life span, no single professional group covers the entirety of this rapidly developing field. Methods: To pursue a discussion of the minimal elements needed to develop evidence-based guidelines in genomics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute jointly held a workshop to engage representatives from 35 organizations with interest in genomics (13 of which make recommendations). The workshop explored methods used in evidence synthesis and guideline development and initiated a dialogue to compare these methods and to assess whether they are consistent with the Institute of Medicine report Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Results: The participating organizations that develop guidelines or recommendations all had policies to manage guideline development and group membership, and processes to address conflicts of interests. However, there was wide variation in the reliance on external reviews, regular updating of recommendations, and use of systematic reviews to assess the strength of scientific evidence. Conclusion: Ongoing efforts are required to establish criteria for guideline development in genomic medicine as proposed by the Institute of Medicine.

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

4.6
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