Needs assessment for updating IOM standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines

Abstract Background The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (CPG Standards) and Standards for Systematic Reviews (SR Standards), established in 2011, have significantly influenced evidence‐based healthcare. However, the rapid evolution in medical practices and technologies necessitates a reassessment of these standards to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness in modern healthcare. Methods This study employed a survey approach targeting professional guideline developers. The first survey assessed the general need for updating IOM standards (both CPG and SR Standards), while the second focused on specific CPG Standards, soliciting detailed feedback on their current relevance and areas needing revision. Participants were purposively targeted from various medical specialties and roles in guideline development. Results The General Need for Updating IOM Standards Survey garnered 22 responses, and the Specific CPG Standards Survey received 25 responses. A significant majority of respondents indicated the need for revising both the CPG and SR Standards. Key areas identified for CPG standards revision included conflict‐of‐interest management, incorporation of real‐world evidence and artificial intelligence, and systematic review processes. The responses highlighted the challenges of high compliance costs and the need for more practical execution guidance. Conclusion This study highlights an urgent need for updating both sets of IOM Standards. The rapidly changing healthcare landscape, characterized by technological advancements and evolving medical evidence, necessitates a dynamic and responsive approach to guideline development. Establishing an authoritative body for periodic assessment and revision of these standards is crucial to ensure that CPGs remain scientifically robust, practical, and relevant to contemporary healthcare needs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Published
2025-05-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70026
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.88
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Needs assessment for updating IOM standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines

Areeba Ahmed, Sandra Zelman Lewis, Murad Alam, Christopher J. Wolfkiel et al.
1 citations
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
1.88
article

Needs assessment for updating IOM standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines

Areeba Ahmed, Sandra Zelman Lewis, Murad Alam, Christopher J. Wolfkiel, Mary Nix
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (CPG Standards) and Standards for Systematic Reviews (SR Standards), established in 2011, have significantly influenced evidence‐based healthcare. However, the rapid evolution in medical practices and technologies necessitates a reassessment of these standards to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness in modern healthcare. Methods This study employed a survey approach targeting professional guideline developers. The first survey assessed the general need for updating IOM standards (both CPG and SR Standards), while the second focused on specific CPG Standards, soliciting detailed feedback on their current relevance and areas needing revision. Participants were purposively targeted from various medical specialties and roles in guideline development. Results The General Need for Updating IOM Standards Survey garnered 22 responses, and the Specific CPG Standards Survey received 25 responses. A significant majority of respondents indicated the need for revising both the CPG and SR Standards. Key areas identified for CPG standards revision included conflict‐of‐interest management, incorporation of real‐world evidence and artificial intelligence, and systematic review processes. The responses highlighted the challenges of high compliance costs and the need for more practical execution guidance. Conclusion This study highlights an urgent need for updating both sets of IOM Standards. The rapidly changing healthcare landscape, characterized by technological advancements and evolving medical evidence, necessitates a dynamic and responsive approach to guideline development. Establishing an authoritative body for periodic assessment and revision of these standards is crucial to ensure that CPGs remain scientifically robust, practical, and relevant to contemporary healthcare needs.

Clinical and Public Health GuidelinesVol. 2(3)
Northwestern University (US), Historic Deerfield (US), ABS Consulting (United States) (US), Therapeutic Guidelines (AU), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
1.88
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.