ArticleBMC medicine2025
Methods and reporting of studies assessing the impact of adherence to clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medicine, 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.
- Barriers to Protocol Adherence in Emergency Departments and Evidence-Based Strategies for Successful Implementation: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Pediatricians and Pediatric Residents Towards Postpartum Depression Screening of Women in Lebanon.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical for improving patient outcomes. However, how the impact of guideline adherence on clinical outcomes is studied remains unclear. Our objectives are (1) to identify studies that assess the impact of adherence to CPGs; (2) to describe the research questions of these studies; and (3) to describe their study designs, methods, and reporting. We focused on CPGs addressing the pharmacologic management of major chronic diseases, specifically musculoskeletal diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis), diabetes, and hypertension.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review. We searched PubMed on March 3, 2023, for studies published since 2013. We included studies assessing the impact of adherence to CPGs for the pharmacologic management of adult patients. One reviewer screened the titles and abstracts and full texts and a second reviewer independently screened 20%. Two reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized pilot-tested data extraction form. Data were analyzed descriptively.
resultsOf 7952 records retrieved, 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies addressed CPGs for the management of diabetes (n = 8), hypertension (n = 6), and axial spondyloarthritis (n = 2). All studies were cohort studies, but none emulated a target trial. The median number of participants analyzed was 511 (IQR 350; 10,536) and the median follow-up time was 9 months (IQR 4; 18). Four studies explicitly reported the recommendations for which the impact of adherence was assessed, nine precisely defined adherence, and eight studies evaluated only surrogate outcomes. Thirteen studies accounted for confounding factors. There was serious or critical risk of bias in selection of participants in 13 studies.
conclusionsThe impact of adherence to clinical practice guidelines is rarely and inadequately evaluated. Future research should employ rigorous study designs and reporting standards to generate more reliable insights into the impact of CPG adherence.
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.