Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Approaches to external review and public comment

From: Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies

  Total (%), n = 101 G-I-N NA alone (%), n = 7 G-I-N NA + NGC (%), n = 14 NGC alone (%), n = 80
Posts protocol for public comment No: 95 (94%) No: 7 (100%) No: 12 (86%) No: 76 (95%)
Sometimes: 3 (3%) Sometimes: 0 (0%) Sometimes: 2 (14%) Sometimes: 1 (1%)
Yes: 3 (3%) Yes: 0 (0%) Yes: 0 (0%) Yes: 3 (4%)
Obtains external review of draft guideline No: 43% No: 1 (14%) No: 3 (21%) No: 39 (49%)
Sometimes: 6 (6%) Sometimes: 1 (14%) Sometimes: 1 (7%) Sometimes: 4 (5%)
Yes: 52 (51%) Yes: 5 (71%) Yes: 10 (71%) Yes: 37 (46%)
Patients represented in external review of draft guideline No or uncertain: 88 (77%) No or uncertain: 6 (86%) No: 12 (86%) No: 70 (87.5%)
Sometimes: 6 (6%) Sometimes: 0 (0%) Sometimes: 2 (14%) Sometimes: 4 (5%)
Yes: 7 (7%) Yes: 1 (14%) Yes: 0 (0%) Yes: 6 (7.5%)
Posts draft guideline for public comment No: 75 (74%) No: 4 (57%) No: 8 (57%) No: 63 (79%)
Sometimes: 2 (2%) Sometimes: 0 (0%) Sometimes: 1 (7%) Sometimes: 1 (1%)
Yes: 24 (24%) Yes: 3 (43%) Yes: 5 (36%) Yes: 16 (20%)
Patients represented in external review OR public comment No or uncertain: 68 (67%) No or uncertain: 3 (43%) No or uncertain: 7 (50%) No or uncertain: 58 (72.5%)
Yes (at least sometimes): 33 (33%) Yes (at least sometimes): 4 (57%) Yes (at least sometimes): 7 (50%) Yesa (at least sometimes): 22 (27.5%)
  1. G-I-N NA Guidelines International Network North America chapter, NGC National Guideline Clearinghouse
  2. aIncludes 3 developers for which one response was “sometimes” and the other was “no”