Skip to main content

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”