gms | German Medical Science

G-I-N Conference 2012

Guidelines International Network

22.08 - 25.08.2012, Berlin

Developing a checklist for considering 'colloquial evidence' in guideline development: a case study from NICE

Meeting Abstract

  • T. Sharma - National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Manchester, United Kingdom
  • B. Kaur - National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Manchester, United Kingdom
  • M. Choudhury - National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom
  • S. Garner - National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom
  • B. Naidoo - National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom

Guidelines International Network. G-I-N Conference 2012. Berlin, 22.-25.08.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. DocP013

DOI: 10.3205/12gin125, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-12gin1259

Veröffentlicht: 10. Juli 2012

© 2012 Sharma et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Background: Colloquial evidence (CE) is the non-scientific evidence that helps provide context to experimental evidence and is used to inform guidance in areas where there are gaps in the published literature. Despite the inherent biases, the use of CE is becoming increasingly important in capturing the experience of patients.

Objectives: To identify best practice in the use of CE and to ascertain how CE is being used at NICE.

Methods: A focused literature review was undertaken. Relevant data was extracted from the NICE guideline manual by two reviewers, using standardised forms and quality assured and analysed by a third reviewer.

Results: The review illustrated that scientific and colloquial evidence is considered in guideline development. CE ranges from information from experts or users based on their own values and experiences, to published policy reports outside the peer-reviewed literature. In NICE's guidelines programme, CE includes expert/professional and patient/carer/lay views, grey literature (including evidence from internet and policy reports) and testimony from stakeholder consultation. Similar results were seen for other guidance development programmes. An appraisal checklist has been proposed from NICE's review and the tools currently available.

Discussion: As decisions often need to be made on areas where there is a lack of scientific evidence, using CE appropriately is essential. There is a lack of appropriate methodology for integrating the different types of evidence and appraisal tools and therefore further development is needed.

Implications for guideline developers: A priority is a validated CE data quality check-list to assist decision makers.