Published in Health Res Policy Syst on November 29, 2006
Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak (2008) 5.28
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 3.45
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 3.31
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.93
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.24
Adapting clinical practice guidelines to local context and assessing barriers to their use. CMAJ (2009) 1.88
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 5. Group processes. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 1.87
Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ (2013) 1.86
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 13. Applicability, transferability and adaptation. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 1.80
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 4. Managing conflicts of interests. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 1.56
Differences among international pharyngitis guidelines: not just academic. Ann Fam Med (2007) 1.49
Development of paediatric quality of inpatient care indicators for low-income countries - A Delphi study. BMC Pediatr (2010) 1.44
Experience developing national evidence-based clinical guidelines for childhood pneumonia in a low-income setting--making the GRADE? BMC Pediatr (2012) 1.34
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective. PLoS Med (2009) 1.22
An interdisciplinary guideline development process: the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) low-back pain guidelines. Implement Sci (2007) 1.16
Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. PLoS One (2013) 1.14
Knowledge creation: synthesis, tools and products. CMAJ (2009) 1.00
A critical appraisal of guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation criteria. Arthritis Res Ther (2007) 0.97
Follow-up care for men with prostate cancer and the role of primary care: a systematic review of international guidelines. Br J Cancer (2009) 0.94
Malaria treatment policy change in Uganda: what role did evidence play? Malar J (2014) 0.92
Do guidelines influence the implementation of health programs?--Uganda's experience. Implement Sci (2012) 0.91
Prioritization strategies in clinical practice guidelines development: a pilot study. Health Res Policy Syst (2010) 0.81
Diabetes-specific nutrition algorithm: a transcultural program to optimize diabetes and prediabetes care. Curr Diab Rep (2012) 0.80
Non-Communicable Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines in Brazil: A Systematic Assessment of Methodological Quality and Transparency. PLoS One (2016) 0.75
Human computation as a new method for evidence-based knowledge transfer in Web-based guideline development groups: proof of concept randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res (2013) 0.75
Evidence-based guidelines: Improving AGREEment on consistence evaluation. J Bone Oncol (2012) 0.75
Perspective: Improving Nutritional Guidelines for Sustainable Health Policies: Current Status and Perspectives. Adv Nutr (2017) 0.75
A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA (1992) 22.27
Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess (1998) 11.56
Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ (2002) 10.70
Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ (1999) 6.01
Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy (2002) 5.64
Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2006) 5.07
An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet (2004) 4.81
Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess (2004) 4.59
The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci (1993) 4.15
Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography--do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other? N Engl J Med (1998) 4.01
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 3.31
Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Health Care (2003) 3.27
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.93
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.24
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 5. Group processes. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 1.87
Effect of specialty and nationality on panel judgments of the appropriateness of coronary revascularization: a pilot study. Med Care (2001) 1.44
Appropriateness of surgery for sciatica: reliability of guidelines from expert panels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (2000) 1.23
Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendations. Health Policy (1997) 1.22
The relation between methods and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. J Fam Pract (2002) 1.06
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (2008) 33.10
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (2011) 29.14
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (2004) 26.08
An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2011) 22.39
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 11.77
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2012) 10.32
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 10.02
Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ (2008) 9.98
Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA (2005) 8.43
A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 7.86
Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ (2008) 7.30
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res (2004) 7.20
Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2009) 7.07
What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ (2008) 6.99
An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline: Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. An Update of the 2011 Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2015) 6.03
Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 5.80
GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 5.78
Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ (2009) 5.68
Comparison of mortality between private for-profit and private not-for-profit hemodialysis centers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA (2002) 5.57
Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2009) 5.57
An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2006) 5.29
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ (2008) 5.16
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 5.10
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. CMAJ (2002) 4.84
Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2005) 4.34
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 3.93
Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ (2003) 3.92
A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ (2009) 3.65
GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 3.60
GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 3.58
GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.54
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 3.45
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.44
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 3.34
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 3.31
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.30
Supporting the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health-care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Lancet (2008) 3.28
Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. BMJ (2005) 3.26
Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2007) 3.06
Antivirals for treatment of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Intern Med (2012) 3.05
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.02
The safety of long-acting beta-agonists among patients with asthma using inhaled corticosteroids: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2008) 3.01
A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci (2013) 3.00
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.93
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res (2005) 2.91
GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 2.83
Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ (2004) 2.76
Rational prescribing in primary care (RaPP): a cluster randomized trial of a tailored intervention. PLoS Med (2006) 2.67
Cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored interventions to improve the management of urinary tract infections in women and sore throat. BMJ (2002) 2.58
An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol (2004) 2.58
Transparent development of the WHO rapid advice guidelines. PLoS Med (2007) 2.57
Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports. BMJ (2004) 2.55
The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 2.55
Translating research into policy and practice in developing countries: a case study of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia. BMC Health Serv Res (2005) 2.50
GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol (2013) 2.46
Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 2.34
Mortality predictions in the intensive care unit: comparing physicians with scoring systems. Crit Care Med (2006) 2.29
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.29
How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA (2012) 2.28
Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care (2006) 2.27
Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement Sci (2013) 2.25
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst (2006) 2.24
[Guidelines for pharmacological primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases--who should be treated?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen (2002) 2.22
[Which antihypertensive drugs should be used in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen (2002) 2.20
Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit. J Clin Epidemiol (2007) 2.20
[Which cholesterol-lowering drugs should be used in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen (2002) 2.19
Low intensity pulsed ultrasonography for fractures: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (2009) 2.15
Integrating mortality and morbidity outcomes: using quality-adjusted life years in critical care trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2012) 2.15
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.15
Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence. Implement Sci (2008) 2.15
HARLOT plc: an amalgamation of the world's two oldest professions. BMJ (2003) 2.14
User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 2.12
The minimal important difference of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes (2008) 2.07
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.05
SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.02
SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 11: Finding and using evidence about local conditions. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 2.00
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst (2009) 1.99
Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ (2010) 1.94
Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ (2008) 1.94
GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2012) 1.90