TY  - JOUR
A1  - Horvath, Karl
A1  - Semlitsch, Thomas
A1  - Jeitler, Klaus
A1  - Abuzahra, Muna E.
A1  - Posch, Nicole
A1  - Domke, Andreas
A1  - Siebenhofer-Kroitzsch, Andrea
T1  - Choosing wisely: assessment of current US top five list recommendations' trustworthiness using a pragmatic approach
T2  - BMJ Open
N2  - 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.
Y1  - 2016
UR  - http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/42005
UR  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-420052
SN  - 2044-6055
N1  - This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
VL  - 6
IS  - 10:e012366
PB  - BMJ Publishing Group
CY  - London
ER  -