Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 149 No. 4142 (2019)

Clinical practice guidelines of medical societies in Switzerland: analysis of the current state

  • Lukas Bachmann
  • Agnė Ulytė
  • Holger Dressel
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2019.20134
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2019;149:w20134
Published
07.10.2019

Summary

AIM OF THE STUDY

In Switzerland, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not generally registered by a single central institution. Therefore, the total number and overall quality of the existing guidelines are not known. Our aim was to identify and describe the characteristics of current CPGs developed or endorsed by Swiss medical societies, by conducting a comprehensive systematic search.

METHODS

A systematic search was done in two medical literature databases (PubMed and OVID), two major non-indexed Swiss medical journals, Swiss medical societies’ websites and the FMH guidelines platform. Synonyms of “guidelines” in English, German, French and Italian were used as search terms, complemented by a hand search. Inclusion criteria for the retrieved documents were that they: (1) contained recommendations for patient care provided by physicians; (2) defined specific clinical circumstances; (3) were developed, adapted or endorsed by one of the Swiss national medical specialty societies. Documents with publication date before 1 January 2008 or containing only general and public health recommendations were excluded. Retrieved documents were screened by two reviewers in parallel. Data on the reported methods as well as transparency and quality indicators of the CPGs were extracted in a standardised way.

RESULTS

A total of 295 CPGs were included in the analysis, 199 of which were found only on the societies’ websites, 44 only in the literature and 13 only on the FMH platform. Overall, 159 (54%) of guidelines had at least one predefined keyword in the title, most frequently “Empfehlung” or “guideline”. Health areas with the highest number of CPGs were cardiovascular (55) and infectious (52) diseases. Most CPGs were developed in Switzerland (212); the rest were developed in cooperation with German societies (6) or with both German and Austrian societies (23), or by other international organisations (54). At least one author and the date of publication were reported in 83% and 94% of guidelines, respectively. Conflicts of interest were stated in 44% and financial support documented in 29% of the guidelines. Any method of guideline development was mentioned in 56%.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous CPGs provide recommendations for clinical practice in Switzerland. The majority are published on medical societies’ websites only. The quality of reporting is extremely heterogeneous, ranging from documents without reported authors, methods of development and publication date, to graded, continuously updated guidelines based on a systematic review of evidence. CPGs could potentially be improved by using a standardised development and reporting framework.

References

  1. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust [Internet]. Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2011. 266 p. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13058
  2. Eicher E. Guideline für Guidelines. Schweiz Arzteztg. 1999;80(10):581–4.
  3. Akademien der Wissenschaften der Schweiz. Ein nachhaltiges Gesundheitssystem für die Schweiz. Roadmap der Akademien der Wissenschaften Schweiz. 2014; Available from: https://www.samw.ch/dam/jcr:56db98e2-3bc2-4741-a168-6fc44ab5aca8/roadmap_samw_nachhaltiges_gesundheitssystem_schweiz.pdf
  4. FMH. Medizinische Guidelines: Voraussetzungen und Anwendung. Schweiz Arzteztg. 2014;95(03):52–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.4414/saez.2014.02166
  5. Legido-Quigley H, Panteli D, Brusamento S, Knai C, Saliba V, Turk E, et al. Clinical guidelines in the European Union: mapping the regulatory basis, development, quality control, implementation and evaluation across member states. Health Policy. 2012;107(2-3):146–56. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.08.004
  6. Obrist R. Guidelines in den schweizerischen medizinischen Fachgesellschaften. Eine Bestandesaufnahme. Schweiz Arzteztg. 2001;82(24):1282–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.4414/saez.2001.08236
  7. Hostettler S, Kraft E, Bosshard C. Neue Online-Plattform «Guidelines Schweiz». Schweiz Arzteztg. 2017;98(2627):862. doi:.https://doi.org/10.4414/saez.2017.05747
  8. Buchan HA, Currie KC, Lourey EJ, Duggan GR. Australian clinical practice guidelines--a national study. Med J Aust. 2010;192(9):490–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03604.x
  9. Esandi ME, Ortiz Z, Chapman E, Dieguez MG, Mejía R, Bernztein R. Production and quality of clinical practice guidelines in Argentina (1994-2004): a cross-sectional study. Implement Sci. 2008;3(1):43. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-43
  10. Venkatesh AK, Savage D, Sandefur B, Bernard KR, Rothenberg C, Schuur JD. Systematic review of emergency medicine clinical practice guidelines: Implications for research and policy. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178456. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178456
  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (Reprinted from Annals of Internal Medicine). Phys Ther. 2009;89(9):873–80. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
  12. FMH. Fachgesellschaften [Internet]. Available from: https://www.fmh.ch/ueber_fmh/aerzteorganisationen/fachgesellschaften.html
  13. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, van der Wees P ; Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–31. Available at: http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009. doi:.https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009
  14. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2018.
  15. Birrenbach T, Kraehenmann S, Perrig M, Berendonk C, Huwendiek S. Physicians’ attitudes toward, use of, and perceived barriers to clinical guidelines: a survey among Swiss physicians. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2016;7:673–80. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S115149
  16. AWMF. Leitlinien [Internet]. Available from: https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien.html.
  17. Tokalić R, Viđak M, Buljan I, Marušić A. Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):135. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4
  18. Burgers JS, Grol R, Klazinga NS, Mäkelä M, Zaat J ; AGREE Collaboration. Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(1):31–45. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/15.1.31
  19. Chen Y, Yang K, Marušic A, Qaseem A, Meerpohl JJ, Flottorp S, et al.; RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) Working Group. A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(2):128–32. doi:.https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-1565
  20. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al.; AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting, and evaluation in health care. Prev Med. 2010;51(5):421–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.08.005

Most read articles by the same author(s)