Author
Listed:
- Nurit Barak
- Carmi Z. Margolis
- Lawrence K. Gottlieb
Abstract
This study aimed to test the usefulness and reliability of text-to-algorithm conversion in comparing competing clinical guidelines and defining their differences. Two pairs of competing guidelines for measles immunization, published in 1989 and 1994, were analyzed and compared. Five categories of differences were detected: differences in recommendations, excluded elements, logical inconsistencies, nonspecific phrases, and approaches to contraindications. On a scale of 0-10 (where identical = 10), the overall comparison scores were 6.01 for the guidelines published in 1989 and 5.54 for the guidelines published in 1994. Text-to-algorithm conversions performed by three different persons on the 1989 guidelines were compared and found similar. Text-to- algorithm conversion is an important step in facilitating comparison of competing guide lines. It has the potential to assist in making rational and systematic choices between competing guidelines before actual field testing takes place. Physicians can use it to analyze and to learn a prose clinical guideline, to critique existing guidelines, and to simulate hypothetical patients for teaching and evaluating clinical management. Key words: medical decision making; clinical guidelines; clinical algorithms; health services evaluation; semantic analysis; measles immunization. (Med Decis Making 1998;18: 304-310)
Suggested Citation
Nurit Barak & Carmi Z. Margolis & Lawrence K. Gottlieb, 1998.
"Text-to-algorithm Conversion to Facilitate Comparison of Competing Clinical Guidelines,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 304-310, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:3:p:304-310
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800308
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:3:p:304-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.