Approval processes in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines sponsored by medical specialty societies.

• Main Authors: Jeffrey Sonis, Olivia M Chen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229004

OBJECTIVE:To determine the approval processes for evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines sponsored by medical specialty societies in the United States. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Cross-sectional analysis of published Clinical Practice Guidelines and Guideline procedure manuals, sponsored by the 43 members of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies in the United States. Approval processes were measured by written evidence in the specialty society's guideline procedure manual or published guidelines, through May 2017. RESULTS:Among the 36 (of 43) specialty societies that published evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines, 27 (75%) required approval by a committee representing the society as a whole. None specified the criteria used for approval decisions. Six specialty societies (17%) required approval but included procedures to maintain some editorial independence for the guideline development group, such as approval by a guideline committee not an executive committee or approval dependent on fidelity to established guideline methodology, not content. One society required Board review, but not approval. The approval process was not reported by 2 (6%) of the specialty societies. CONCLUSIONS:Most medical specialty societies in the U.S. require approval of guidelines by a board that represents the society as whole. Since medical specialty societies have loyalties to the patients they serve and to their physician members, and because the interests of those two groups may differ, such an approval process introduces a potential conflict of interest into the guideline development process.