This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Correction  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Cardiovascular System  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Quality of Care, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Pierluigi Tricoci, MD, MHS, PhD; Joseph M. Allen, MA; Judith M. Kramer, MD, MS; Robert M. Califf, MD; Sidney C. Smith Jr, MD

JAMA. 2009;301(8):831-841.

Context  The joint cardiovascular practice guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have become important documents for guiding cardiology practice and establishing benchmarks for quality of care.

Objective  To describe the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines and the distribution of recommendations across classes of recommendations and levels of evidence.

Data Sources and Study Selection  Data from all ACC/AHA practice guidelines issued from 1984 to September 2008 were abstracted by personnel in the ACC Science and Quality Division. Fifty-three guidelines on 22 topics, including a total of 7196 recommendations, were abstracted.

Data Extraction  The number of recommendations and the distribution of classes of recommendation (I, II, and III) and levels of evidence (A, B, and C) were determined. The subset of guidelines that were current as of September 2008 was evaluated to describe changes in recommendations between the first and current versions as well as patterns in levels of evidence used in the current versions.

Results  Among guidelines with at least 1 revision or update by September 2008, the number of recommendations increased from 1330 to 1973 (+48%) from the first to the current version, with the largest increase observed in use of class II recommendations. Considering the 16 current guidelines reporting levels of evidence, only 314 recommendations of 2711 total are classified as level of evidence A (median, 11%), whereas 1246 (median, 48%) are level of evidence C. Level of evidence significantly varies across categories of guidelines (disease, intervention, or diagnostic) and across individual guidelines. Recommendations with level of evidence A are mostly concentrated in class I, but only 245 of 1305 class I recommendations have level of evidence A (median, 19%).

Conclusions  Recommendations issued in current ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinion. The proportion of recommendations for which there is no conclusive evidence is also growing. These findings highlight the need to improve the process of writing guidelines and to expand the evidence base from which clinical practice guidelines are derived.

Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute (Dr Tricoci), Division of General Internal Medicine and Duke Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (Dr Kramer), and Division of Cardiology and Duke Translational Medicine Institute (Dr Califf), Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; American College of Cardiology Science and Quality Division, Washington, DC (Mr Allen); and Center for Cardiovascular Science and Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Smith).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Antitrust Law—Reply
John Kraemer and Lawrence Gostin
JAMA. 2009;301(24):2549-2550.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Susan L. Norris
JAMA. 2009;302(2):142.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Finlay A. McAlister
JAMA. 2009;302(2):142-143.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Francesco Enia
JAMA. 2009;302(2):143.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Christian M. Pettker and Edmund F. Funai
JAMA. 2009;302(2):143.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Elliott M. Antman and Raymond J. Gibbons
JAMA. 2009;302(2):143-144.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Mark D. Huffman and Robert O. Bonow
JAMA. 2009;302(2):144-145.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
John Concato and Ralph I. Horwitz
JAMA. 2009;302(2):145.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLES

Reassessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Go Gently Into That Good Night
Terrence M. Shaneyfelt and Robert M. Centor
JAMA. 2009;301(8):868-869.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-Based Medicine
Janet M. Torpy, Cassio Lynm, and Richard M. Glass
JAMA. 2009;301(8):900.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Endoscopic versus Open Vein-Graft Harvesting
Aranki et al.
NEJM 2009;361:1907-1910.
FULL TEXT  

The quality conundrum.
Spray
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2009;138:1053-1059.
FULL TEXT  

ACC 2009 Advocacy Position Statement: Principles for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Drozda et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1744-1746.
FULL TEXT  

Early Statin Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes: The Successful Cycle of Evidence, Guidelines, and Implementation
Waters and Ku
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1434-1437.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated at Hospitals With and Without On-Site Cardiac Surgery: What Is the Important Point?
Dehmer and Brindis
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009;2:953-955.
FULL TEXT  

Controversies and Opportunities in Economic Analysis of Health Care
Weintraub
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009;2:402-403.
FULL TEXT  

Bayesian Classification of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Diamond and Kaul
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1431-1435.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Norris
JAMA 2009;302:142-142.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Enia
JAMA 2009;302:143-143.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Concato and Horwitz
JAMA 2009;302:145-145.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
McAlister
JAMA 2009;302:142-143.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Pettker and Funai
JAMA 2009;302:143-143.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Scientific Evidence
Antman and Gibbons
JAMA 2009;302:143-144.
FULL TEXT  

Class I Indications for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: What Is the Appropriate Therapy for Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease?
Dean
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009;2:622-623.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Antitrust Law--Reply
Kraemer and Gostin
JAMA 2009;301:2549-2550.
FULL TEXT  

Not Enough Evidence for Evidence-Based Guidelines?
Journal Watch Cardiology 2009;2009:3-3.
FULL TEXT  

Critique of Clinical Practice Guidelines
JWatch General 2009;2009:1-1.
FULL TEXT  

Tools for Guiding Clinical Practice From the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology: What Are They and How Should Clinicians Use Them?
Antman and Peterson
Circulation 2009;119:1180-1185.
FULL TEXT  

All you need to read in the other general journals
BMJ 2009;338:b863-b863.
FULL TEXT  

Reassessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Go Gently Into That Good Night
Shaneyfelt and Centor
JAMA 2009;301:868-869.
FULL TEXT