Choosing Wisely: assessment of current US top five list recommendations' trustworthiness using a pragmatic approach. Issue 10 (7th October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Horvath, Karl; Semlitsch, Thomas; Jeitler, Klaus; Abuzahra, Muna E; Posch, Nicole; Domke, Andreas; Siebenhofer, Andrea
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 6:Issue 10(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-10-07
• Subjects: Choosing Wisely -- top five lists -- trustworthiness -- guidelines; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012366
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Identification of sufficiently trustworthy top 5 list recommendations from the US Choosing Wisely campaign. Setting: Not applicable. Participants: All top 5 list recommendations available from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation website. Main outcome measures/interventions: Compilation of US top 5 lists and search for current German highly trustworthy (S3) guidelines. Extraction of guideline recommendations, including grade of recommendation (GoR), for suggestions comparable to top 5 list recommendations. For recommendations without guideline equivalents, the methodological quality of the top 5 list development process was assessed using criteria similar to that used to judge guidelines, and relevant meta-literature was identified in cited references. Judgement of sufficient trustworthiness of top 5 list recommendations was based either on an 'A' GoR of guideline equivalents or on high methodological quality and citation of relevant meta-literature. Results: 412 top 5 list recommendations were identified. For 75 (18%), equivalents were found in current German S3 guidelines. 44 of these recommendations were associated with an 'A' GoR, or a strong recommendation based on strong evidence, and 26 had a 'B' or a 'C' GoR. No GoR was provided for 5 recommendations. 337 recommendations had no equivalent in the German S3 guidelines. The methodological quality of the development process was high and relevant meta-literature was cited for 87 top 5 list recommendations. For a further 36, either the methodological quality was high without any meta-literature citations or meta-literature citations existed but the methodological quality was lacking. For the remaining 214 recommendations, either the methodological quality was lacking and no literature was cited or the methodological quality was generally unsatisfactory. Conclusions: 131 of current US top 5 list recommendations were found to be sufficiently trustworthy. For a substantial number of current US top 5 list recommendations, their trustworthiness remains unclear. Methodological requirements for developing top 5 lists are recommended.