Thank you for the write up. However, it lacked details from the NGC/AHRQ. The NGC/AHRQ evaluated the ODG guidelines and found that they did not meet their new criteria for EBM based on IOM’s standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines. According to NGC/AHRQ, ODG was lacking:
-explanation on how they selected studies for their evidence-based review (including the number of studies identified; the number of studies evaluated; a summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria)
-The synthesized/detailed description and/or evidence table for the selected studies
what is that old adage from the government “I am only here to help”
how they can take a particularly successful guidelines and make it so complicated and onerous that this organization feels it has to leave the clearinghouse, can only be akin to the ever expanding tax code or the ACA where no one can read it as it just is.
there were standards as to the how and why articles were included, only that the standards did not give away the ranch as the current administration clearly wants to do.
I don’t disagree that often times government tends to over-complicate something that should be straight forward. In the case of the NGC, ODG did not “feel it had to leave the clearing house” it was dropped by the clearinghouse for not meeting very objective measurable standards of IOM’s EBM criteria:
-explanation on how they selected studies for their evidence-based review (including the number of studies identified; the number of studies evaluated; a summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria)
-The synthesized/detailed description and/or evidence table for the selected studies
In the case of EBM, the content development must be transparent and the methodology must be reproducible. Otherwise, what assurance is there that the content is medically appropriate, un-bias, and actually founded in science?
ODG is working hard to spin the facts. They’ve gone as far as back-dating a press release on their website.
Injured workers deserve better. We cannot allow ODG, or anyone that has influence on the quality of medical care received by injured workers, to cut corners and provide substandard solutions.
Thank you for the write up. However, it lacked details from the NGC/AHRQ. The NGC/AHRQ evaluated the ODG guidelines and found that they did not meet their new criteria for EBM based on IOM’s standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines. According to NGC/AHRQ, ODG was lacking:
-explanation on how they selected studies for their evidence-based review (including the number of studies identified; the number of studies evaluated; a summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria)
-The synthesized/detailed description and/or evidence table for the selected studies
Carlos Luna
what is that old adage from the government “I am only here to help”
how they can take a particularly successful guidelines and make it so complicated and onerous that this organization feels it has to leave the clearinghouse, can only be akin to the ever expanding tax code or the ACA where no one can read it as it just is.
there were standards as to the how and why articles were included, only that the standards did not give away the ranch as the current administration clearly wants to do.
Donald,
I don’t disagree that often times government tends to over-complicate something that should be straight forward. In the case of the NGC, ODG did not “feel it had to leave the clearing house” it was dropped by the clearinghouse for not meeting very objective measurable standards of IOM’s EBM criteria:
-explanation on how they selected studies for their evidence-based review (including the number of studies identified; the number of studies evaluated; a summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria)
-The synthesized/detailed description and/or evidence table for the selected studies
In the case of EBM, the content development must be transparent and the methodology must be reproducible. Otherwise, what assurance is there that the content is medically appropriate, un-bias, and actually founded in science?
ODG is working hard to spin the facts. They’ve gone as far as back-dating a press release on their website.
Injured workers deserve better. We cannot allow ODG, or anyone that has influence on the quality of medical care received by injured workers, to cut corners and provide substandard solutions.