Book Navigation

We are sorry, but signing in with LinkedIn is not possible at this time.


Literature update July 2012

A selection of guideline related literature covering the period April 2012-June 2012.

word cloud.jpgWe have more than 450 entries in the list of relevant literature on the G-I-N website. As we are updating this list regularly we encourage G-I-N members to subscribe to the feeds available on the pages: and (note: you have to be logged in to be able to do so).

We include here the editors’ pick of papers (including the abstracts by authors if available) retrieved during the period April 2012 – June 2012.


Teasell R. Challenges in the implementation of evidence in stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2012; 19(2):93-5

Foley N, Pereira S, Salter K, Meyer M, McClure JA, Teasell R. Are recommendations regarding inpatient therapy intensity following acute stroke really evidence-based? Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2012; 19(2):96-103.

Background: Recommendations regarding the daily minimum dose of therapy that patients should receive following stroke are included in many clinical practice guidelines. We examined the related literature to determine whether a specific evidence-based recommendation could be supported. Method: Six clinical practice guidelines were retrieved and examined to determine what recommendation, if any, had been made regarding the daily provision of therapy during inpatient rehabilitation. All studies cited by the guideline authors to support their recommendations were identified and retrieved. Studies in which treatment was (a) focused on motor recovery, (b) initiated during inpatient rehabilitation, and (c) provided within 3 months of stroke onset were reviewed in greater detail. Results: Three of the 6 identified guidelines recommended daily minimum amounts of therapy, ranging from 45 to 60 minutes each day of occupational (OT) and physiotherapy (PT), and 3 made general statements indicating that increased intensity of therapy was either recommended or was not recommended. Among the 6 guidelines, 37 studies had been cited to support the recommendations. Of these, 15 were reviewed in detail. On average, patients in the control condition received 48 minutes of therapy per day while those in the experimental group received 63% more, or 78 minutes per day. Patients in the experimental group performed significantly better on the primary outcome in only 5 (33%) studies. Conclusions: We believe the evidence base cannot support a specific recommendation related to therapy intensity during inpatient rehabilitation following stroke.

Sepehrvand N, Pakdel FG, Rahimi-Rad MH, Moosavi-Toomatari B, Bazargan-Hejazi S. Practice guidelines and clinical risk assessment models: is it time to reform? BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making. 2011; 11:63

Background: Clinical practice guidelines and Risk Assessment Models (RAMs) are some useful tools to bring medical evidences into our daily clinical practice. Despite the improvement over the time, they still have some shortcomings. Discussion: One of these shortcomings is the arbitrary cutoffs used in these tools to facilitate the decision making process. This problem is to some extent due to the "Black or White" approach of modern medicine in making the decisions, whilst in the real world and our daily practice we used mostly an uncertain approach, which is called recently as "Fuzzy" thinking approach. Summary: The authors of this article believe that the fuzzy type of thinking may resolve the above mentioned shortcomings of clinical practice guideline or risk assessment models and they tried to discuss about this using an example about Venous Thromboembolism related guidelines and RAMs.

de Boer WE, Bruinvels DJ, Rijkenberg AM, Donceel P, Anema JR. Evidence-based guidelines in the evaluation of work disability: an international survey and a comparison of quality of development. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9:349.

Background: In social insurance, the evaluation of work disability is becoming stricter as priority is given to the resumption of work, which calls for a guarantee of quality for these evaluations. Evidence-based guidelines have become a major instrument in the quality control of health care, and the quality of these guidelines' development can be assessed using the AGREE instrument. In social insurance medicine, such guidelines are relatively new. We were interested to know what guidelines have been developed to support the medical evaluation of work disability and the quality of these guidelines. Methods: Five European countries that were reported to use guidelines were approached, using a recent inventory of evaluations of work disability in Europe. We focused on guidelines that are disease-oriented and formally prescribed in social insurance medicine. Using the AGREE instrument, these guidelines were appraised by two researchers. We asked two experts involved in guideline development to indicate if they agreed with our results and to provide explanations for insufficient scores. Results: We found six German and sixteen Dutch sets of disease-oriented guidelines in official use. The AGREE instrument was applicable, requiring minor adaptations. The appraisers reached consensus on all items. Each guideline scored well on 'scope and purpose' and 'clarity and presentation'. The guidelines scored moderately on 'stakeholder involvement' in the Netherlands, but insufficiently in Germany, due mainly to the limited involvement of patients' representatives in this country. All guidelines had low scores on 'rigour of development', which was due partly to a lack of documentation and of existing evidence. 'Editorial independence' and 'applicability' had low scores in both countries as a result of how the production was organised. Conclusion: Disease-oriented guidelines in social insurance medicine for the evaluation of work disability are a recent phenomenon, so far restricted to Germany and the Netherlands. The AGREE instrument is suitably applicable to assess the quality of guideline development in social insurance medicine, but some of the scoring rules need to be adapted to the context of social insurance. Existing guidelines do not meet the AGREE criteria to a sufficient level. The way patients' representatives can be involved needs further discussion. The guidelines would profit from more specific recommendations and, for providing evidence, more research is needed on the functional capacity of people with disabilities.


Page last updated: Jul 03, 2012
Back to top