Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal reviews and clinical practice guidelines for newborns in Denmark – a cross sectional study
- Jesper Brok (jbrok{at}ctu.rh.dk)
- The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Denmark
- Gorm Greisen (greisen{at}rh.dk)
- Lars P Madsen (larsmadsen{at}nja.dk)
- Karen Tilma (karen{at}tilma.dk)
- Klaus Børch (klaus.boerch{at}hh.hosp.dk)
- Ester Garne (estgar{at}fks.vejleamt.dk)
- Henrik T Christensen (henrik.thybo.christesen{at}ouh.fyns-amt.dk)
- Hristo Stanchev (stanchev{at}dadlnet.dk)
- Thorkild Jacobsen (tjac{at}dadlnet.dk)
- Jens P Nielsen (jens.peter.nielsen{at}sygehusviborg.dk)
- Tine Brink Henriksen (tine.brink.henriksen{at}ki.au.dk)
- Perinatal Epidemiology Research Unit, Dept of Obstetrics and Paediatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
- Christian Gluud (cgluud{at}ctu.rh.dk)
- The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Denmark
- Published Online First 24 September 2007
Abstract
Objective:To assess agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical practice guidelines in Denmark.
Design:Retrospective analysis of clinical guidelines for newborn infants.
Materials:All Cochrane neonatal reviews and Danish local clinical guidelines for newborn infants.
Main outcome measures:The recommendations from the Cochrane reviews and local neonatal guidelines were compared and classified as being in agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement. Guideline authors were asked whether Cochrane reviews had been considered during guideline development and reasons for disagreements. Heterogeneity among departments was assessed.
Results:173 interventions evaluated in Cochrane neonatal reviews were included. All 17 Danish neonatal departments agreed to participate, but only 14 (82%) delivered data. Agreement between reviews and guidelines was observed for a median of 132 interventions (76%) (range 129 to 134), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) (range 29 to 33), and disagreement for 10 interventions (6%) (range 8 to 13) (Kappa = 0.56, range 0.53 to 0.59). Most of the latter 10 interventions were not recommended in the reviews but in the guidelines. The reasons for disagreement were numerous; usage of evidence with higher bias risks than randomised trials in guidelines development was the most frequent one. Cochrane reviews were rarely (10%) used during guideline development. Nine guideline topics (5%) revealed diversity among the departments’ recommendations.
Conclusions:There is good agreement between Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines in Denmark. The disagreements are few. Cochrane reviews were rarely used for guideline development. Guideline heterogeneity among neonatal departments seems moderate.
