SIGN 50: A guideline developer's handbook

References

1. Scottish Office. Clinical Resources and Audit Group. Clinical guidelines: report by a working group. Edinburgh: Scottish Office; 1993. [Section 1] [Section 2] [Section 10]

2. Petrie J, Grimshaw J, Bryson A. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Initiative: getting validated guidelines into local practice. Health Bull (Edin) 1995;53:354-8. [Section 1]

3. Field M, Lohr K. Institute of Medicine Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1990. [Section 1]

4. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Clinical guidelines: criteria for appraisal for national use. Edinburgh: SIGN; 1995. [Section 1]

5. The AGREE Collaboration. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. [cited 4 Feb 2008]. Available from url: http://www.agreetrust.org [Section 1]

6. Abernethy P. Legal implications of guidelines. [Personal communication]. 1995. [Section 1]

7. Scottish Executive. Central Legal Office. Comments on development since Dr. Abernethy's paper on the legal implications of guidelines. [Personal communication]. 2006. [Section 1]

8. Kelson M. User involvement: a guide to developing effective user involvement strategies in the NHS. London: College of Health; 1997. [Section 4]

9. van Wersch A, Eccles M. Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence based guideline development programme. Quality in Health Care 2001;10(1):10-6. [Section 4]

10. Farmer A. Medical practice guidelines: lessons from the United States. BMJ 1993;307:313-7. [Section 5]

11. Canadian Medical Association. Guidelines for Canadian clinical practice guidelines. [cited 4 Feb 2008]. Available from url: http://mdm.ca/cpgsnew/cpgs/gccpg-e.htm [Section 5]

12. Leape L, Park R, Kahan J, Brrok R. Group judgement of appropriateness: the effect of panel composition. Qual Assur Health Care 1992;4:151-9. [Section 5]

13. Scott E, Black N. When does consensus exist in expert panels? J Pub Health Med 1991;13:35-9. [Section 5]

14. Lomas J. Making clinical policy explicit: legislative policy making and lessons for developing practice guidelines. Int J Technol Asses Health Care 1993;9:11-25. [Section 5]

15. Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Russell I. Developing clinically valid practice guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract 1995;1:37-48. [Section 5]

16. Pagliari C, Grimshaw J, Eccles M. The potential influence of small group processes on guideline development. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2001;7(2):165-73. [Section 5.1] [Section 5.2]

17. Pagliari C, Grimshaw J. Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. J Eval Clin Pract 2002;8(2):145-53. [Section 5.1] [Section 5.2]

18. Shekelle P, Woolf S, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ 1999;318:593-6. [Section 5]

19. Antman E, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers T. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992;268:240-8. [Section 6]

20. Mulrow C. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597-9. [Section 6]

21. Woolf S. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II: Methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:946-52. [Section 6]

22. Fervers B, Burgers J, Haugh M, Latreille J, Mlika-Cabanne N, Paquet L, et al. Adaptation of clinical guidelines: literature review and proposition for a framework and procedure. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2006;18(3):167-76. [Section 6]

23. Burnand B, Fervers B. Guideline adaptation. [cited 4 Feb 2008]. Available from url: http://www.g-i-n.net/download/files/ADAPTE_project_description_for_GIN.pdf [Section 6]

24. Liddle J, Williamson M, Irwig L. Method for evaluating research and guideline evidence. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Health; 1996. [Section 6]

25. Clinical Practice Guideline No.1: acute pain management: operative or medical procedures and trauma. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1993. AHCPR Publication No. 92-0023. [Section 7]

26. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Methodology Review Group. Report on the review of the method of grading guideline recommendations. Edinburgh: SIGN; 1999. [Section 7]

27. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 1991;323:334-6. [Section 7]

28. Harbour R, Gillespie A, Gordon RT, Graham K, Jones D, Nairn M, et al. Introducing qualitative evidence into clinical practice guidelines: a pilot project in cancer pain. Paper B35, Presented at Guidelines International Network (GIN) Conference, Toronto 22 - 25 August 2007. [Section 7]

29. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt G, Henry D, Hill S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Services Research 2004;4(38). [Section 7]

30. Atkins D, Briss P, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt G, Harbour R, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: Pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Services Research 2005;5(25). [Section 7]

31. The GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490-4. [Section 7]

32. Grol R, Grimshaw J. Evidence-based implementation of evidence-based medicine. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999;25(10):503-13. [Section 10]

33. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003;362(939):1170. [Section 10]

34. University of York. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Getting evidence into practice. Effective Health Care Bulletin 5; 1999. [cited 4 Feb 2008]. Available from http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ehc51.pdf [Section 10]

35. Palmer C, Fenner J. Getting the message across: a review of research and theory about disseminating information in the NHS. London: Gaskell; 1999. [Section 10]

36. Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: implementation guide and audit protocol 2003. London: Royal College of Nursing; 2003. [Section 10]