ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2025
What Constitutes a High-Quality Guideline: Exploring Consumers' Views.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- United European Gastroenterology Journal: Striving for High-Quality Clinical Guidelines.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Article
- Gutflix 'How to Develop Guidelines' Series.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical guidelines are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. Little is known about clinicians' knowledge of guideline development and how they perceive guideline quality.
methodsA survey protocol was designed according to the CHERRIES (improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) checklist. The survey explored three main aspects: high-quality markers of guidelines, knowledge of guideline development, and areas for improvement. The survey was conducted by contacting UEG and affiliated societies by email and via social media. All valid answers to each question were counted.
resultsA total of 585 participants responded during the 3-month period. Some 65.8% were aged between 30 and 60 years, and 75.4% were doctors. The most important perceived quality indicators within a guideline were 'clear and actionable recommendations (97%)', followed by 'based on systematic literature review' (96%), and 'transparent methodology' (90%). 230 (39.3%) respondents were previously involved in clinical guideline development. However, the experience of working with a methodologist (18.8%) and using well-established guideline checklists (AGREE-II [21.0%]), RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice guidelines in HealThcare) (9.9%) were limited. Just under half of the responders (289, 49.4%) were familiar with the GRADE methodology. Apps (78.5%), webinars (73.8%), and short videos (68.2%) were popular tools to access clinical guidelines. Over 90% of responders stated that the reputation of the journal (92%) and the name of the society involved in guideline development (91%) were important. Two-thirds of the responders preferred to see abridged versions of guidelines and 69.2% preferred freely accessible or open access guidelines.
conclusionConsumers are keen to read clear and actionable guidelines that are developed transparently. There is a gap in guideline development knowledge. Initiatives by medical journals and professional societies are important to ensure the development of accessible and robust clinical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.