Introduction
Evidence-based guidelines are a way of medical care where the background data is used in administering the attention needed to the patient. Data about the background is corrected on the issue at hand. The use of evidence-based care helps in understanding the care decisions that are taken by the providers.
Who were the guideline developers?
The guideline developers were a panel of experts, which was commissioned by NAEPP CC(National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee) and was coordinated by NHLBI (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), which is under the National Institutes of Health.
Were the developers of the guideline representative of key stakeholders in this specialty (inter-disciplinary)?
The panel was made up of experts from different organizations that deal with people with the conditions. It was made up of experts in the areas, and they were from different disciplines to ensure they gave their ideas and views from their field of work.
Who funded the guideline development?
Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma development was funded by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) Coordinating Committee (CC). The funding was from the research funds they receive from the government agencies that are concerned with chronic diseases. The funds were also from donors interested in the area.
Were any of the guideline developers funded researchers of the reviewed studies?
The Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3) were developed from other previous strategies. The developers also used literature from other studies, and they reviewed the procedures that were discussed by researchers who had an interest in the topic. They were researchers with experience on the subject and had researched extensively on it.
Did the team have a valid development strategy?
Yes, they had a valid strategy for developing the program. The approach they used was to create on the already existing policies that had been previously developed. The development was based on the research that had been done and the recommendations they had received from the researchers on the topic.
Was an explicit (how decisions were made), sensible, and impartial process used to identify, select, and combine evidence?
The decision making in the development process of the program was impartial as they looked at all the recommendations that had on the issue and discussed them in length. The discussions were based on validity and the evidence provided before making them part of the program.
Did its developers carry out a comprehensive, reproducible literature review within the past 12 months of its publication/revision?
The developers had a team of experts that were experienced in the sector, and they reviewed the literature that had been developed on the topic. They focused on the recommendations they had arrived at and how viable they were. They discussed research produced within the last months before its revision.
Were all important options and outcomes considered?
The review of the literature produced and the recommendations from them led to them having the possible options for the program, and also the outcomes of the recommendations were considered. The considerations were made to bring clarity to the use of the program in the future.
Is each recommendation in the guideline tagged by the level/strength of evidence upon which it is based and linked to the scientific evidence?
The recommendations that were put in place in the program have enough evidence that is a result of the research that was conducted on the same by the researchers. Also, they used existing information and knowledge to back up the recommendations and also the scientific data that had been developed over time on the condition.
Do the guidelines make explicit recommendations (reflecting value judgments about the outcomes)?
The recommendations on the program were based on the results that had been tested. The tests conducted had to be verified to ensure they were consistent, and the results were correct. The verification was to ensure that the recommendations were valid and accurate.
Has the guideline been subjected to peer review and testing?
The guideline has been subjected to peer review over time, and the recommendations have been tested time and again. The testing of the recommendations and the program in the guideline has been to ascertain the dependability, consistency, and accuracy in the use of them in the world.
Is the intent of use provided (i.e., national, regional, local)?
The program was developed for international use in the diagnosis and managing asthma. The plan was designed to be applicable globally by the committee. Its purpose is based on the global standards of diagnosing and managing asthma as a chronic condition.
Are the recommendations clinically relevant?
The recommendations are backed up by clinical and scientific research outcomes. The recommendations are relevant as they offer the health providers the perfect way they can diagnose and manage the asthma conditions in the patients that receive. The use of the program is relevant to the clinical management of the disease.
Will the recommendations help me in caring for my patients?
The recommendations are tailored to ensuring a better approach to diagnosing and managing asthma in patients. The recommendations can be used in caring for patients all over the globe. The proposals have been tested, and they are safe for use on the care of the patients.
Are the recommendations practical/feasible? Are resources (people and equipment) available?
The recommendations are easy to follow, and they are practical in the management of the conditions in the patients. The suggestions are easy to use, and the equipment and the personnel are available as it uses methods that are not hard to use.
Are the recommendations a significant variation from current practice? Can the outcomes be measured through standard care?
The recommendations are a slight variation on the current practices. The suggestions are a better variation as they add some areas that have been discovered by the researchers on the topic. The use of standard care can measure the outcomes of using the recommendations as they do not vary mainly from the current practice.
Conclusion
The recommendations are comprehensive, and they have been widely researched before being used in the program. The use of the recommendations in the program is designed to make the diagnosis and the management of asthma in the patients. It is a better way that will offer a better idea of caring for the patients.