Premium
Inconsistencies in clinical guidelines for obstetric anaesthesia for C aesarean section
Author(s) -
WINTHER L. P.,
MITCHELL A. U.,
MØLLER A. M.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1399-6576
pISSN - 0001-5172
DOI - 10.1111/aas.12004
Subject(s) - guideline , medicine , valuation (finance) , quality (philosophy) , section (typography) , family medicine , accounting , pathology , philosophy , epistemology , business , advertising
Background Anaesthetists need evidence‐based clinical guidelines, also in obstetric anaesthesia. We compared the D anish, E nglish, A merican, and G erman national guidelines for anaesthesia for C aesarean section. We focused on assessing the quality of guideline development and evaluation of the guidelines' content. Methods We compared the four countries' guideline developmental quality by using the A ppraisal of G uidelines for R esearch and E valuation ( AGREE ) instrument, an international tool for development and assessment of guidelines. The clinically important content of these countries' guidelines was compared. Results We found differences in the quality of guideline development in the four countries. The G erman guidelines scored very low in the AGREE analysis, and the D anish national guideline scored low in the AGREE analysis. The A merican and B ritish guideline both achieved high scores in the AGREE analysis. We found differences in the content of the four countries' guidelines. The D anish, A merican, and B ritish guidelines were comprehensive but with some variation in the content. Conclusion Development of national guidelines might benefit from following standardised regulations, such as those used in the AGREE tool. Content of guidelines is not standardised. Recommendations for the content of guidelines might contribute to standardising clinical guidelines.