Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A comparative analysis of four clinical guidelines for hypertension management

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 22, pages 829–837 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

We compared the structure and content of guidelines for hypertension management across countries to gain an understanding of where differences between them originate from. Four guidelines published between 2003 and 2006 were selected. Two were issued by national agencies in the United Kingdom and France, and two were issued by working groups or national medical societies in the United States and in Europe. The structure of guidelines, the content of each section and their underlying bibliographic references were compared between authoring bodies. If differences were found between guidelines in terms of content, we analysed the rationales. The guidelines were sufficiently similar in structure, showing common sections such as lifestyle interventions, cardiovascular risk assessment and drug therapies. However, contentwise, major differences were observed across the four hypertension guidelines in virtually every section of the document. The definition of hypertension was consistent, whereas the grade stratification was not. Information concerning the blood pressure self-measurement, the estimation of cardiovascular risk and the antihypertensive drugs proposed for initial treatment also varied. Most of the differences were present in both guidelines and their rationales, but some were only found in the guidelines. The bibliographic references for the rationales differed significantly, with only 1.2, 2.2 and 8.8% of the total number of references were common to four, three and two authoring bodies, accounting for the variability. We conclude that improving the selection process of bibliographic references and the extraction process of guidelines from the rationales might be the first step to harmonize guidelines' development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McGlynn E, Ash S, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, De Cristofaro A et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2635–2645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Detsky A . Regional variation in medical care. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 589–590.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Patel V, Arocha J, Diermeier M, Greenes R, Shortliffe E . Methods of cognitive analysis to support the design and evaluation of biomedical systems: the case of clinical practice guidelines. J Biomed Inform 2001; 34: 52–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Winslow C, Solomon D, Chassin M, Kosecoff J, Merrick N, Brook R . The appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 721–727.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chassin M, Kosecoff J, Park R . Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services? A study of three procedures. JAMA 1987; 258: 2533–2537.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Swales J . Guidelines on guidelines. J Hypertens 1993; 11: 899–903.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hitchen L . Conflicting guidelines on same topics cause doctors confusion say MPs. Br Med J 2007; 335: 1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McAlister F, van Diepen S, Padwal R, Johnson J, Majumdar S . How evidence-based are the recommendations in evidence-based guidelines? PLoS Med 2007; 4: 1325–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fahey T, Peters T . What constitutes controlled hypertension? Patient based comparison of hypertension guidelines. Br Med J 1996; 313: 93–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fahey T, Peters T . Clinical guidelines and the management of hypertension: a between-practice and guideline comparison. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: 729–730.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Marshall T . Evaluating national guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care. J Eval Clin Pract 2005; 11: 452–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mashru M, Lant A . Interpractice audit of diagnosis and management of hypertension in primary care: educational intervention and review of medical records. Br Med J 1997; 314: 942–946.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vogel N, Burnand B, Vial Y, Ruiz J, Paccaud F, Hohlfeld P . Screening for gestational diabetes: variation in guidelines. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000; 91: 29–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Burgers J, Bailey J, Klazinga N, Van Der Bij A, Grol R, Feder G . Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1933–1939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). Essential Hypertension—Guidelines 2005. Available at http://www.has-sante.fr.

  17. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hypertension: Management of Hypertension in Adults in Primary Care 2006. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk.

  18. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo Jr JL et al. Prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (JNC 7). J Hypertens 2003; 42: 1206–1252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cifkova R, Erdine S, Fagard R, Farsang C, Heagerty A, Kiowsky W et al. Practice guidelines for primary care physicians: 2003 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1779–1786.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G et al. Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension—The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2007; 25: 1105–1187.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Georg G, Jaulent M-C . An environment for document engineering of clinical guidelines. In: Friedman CP (ed). Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2005; Omnipress: Washington, DC, pp 276–280.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Georg G, Jaulent M-C . A document engineering environment for clinical guidelines. In: King PR, Simske S (eds). Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering, 2007; Winnipeg, Canada. ACM Press: New York, USA, pp 69–78.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Van der Velde G, Van Tulder M, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Aker P, Cassidy J . The sensitivity of review results to methods used to appraise and incorporate trial quality into data synthesis. Spine 2007; 32: 796–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Thomson R, Lavender M, Madhok R . Fortnightly review: how to ensure that guidelines are effective. Br Med J 1995; 311: 237–242.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Haines A, Feder G . Guidance on guidelines. Br Med J 1992; 305: 785–786.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Thomas S . Standard setting in The Netherlands: impact of the human factor on guideline development. Br J Gen Pract 1994; 44: 242–243.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Thomson R, McElroy H, Sudlow M . Guidelines on anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation in Great Britain: variation in content and implications for treatment. Br Med J 1998; 316: 509–513.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Michie S, Berentson-Shaw J, Pilling S, Dieppe P, Raine R, Cluzeau F et al. Turning evidence into recommendations: protocol for a study of guideline development groups. Implement Sci 2007; 5: 2–29.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mlika-Cabanne N, Twaddle S, Laurence M . Evidence Tables—The ‘Holy Grail’ for literature reviewers. 4th Annual G-I-N Conference 2007; available at http://www.g-i-n.net/.

  30. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 2004; 328: 1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fervers B, Burgers JS, Brouwers M, Remy-Stockinger M, Simon A, Mlika-Cabanne N et al. Guideline adaptation: a methodology to enhance efficiency in guideline development and improve utilization. 4th Annual G-I-N Conference 2007; available at http://www.g-i-n.net/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Gersende Georg is funded through a post-doctoral fellowship from ‘Region Ile-de-France’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INSERM U 872, Paris, France

    G Georg, I Colombet, P Durieux & P Meneton

  2. Université Paris Descartes, UMR S 872, Paris, France

    G Georg, I Colombet, P Durieux, J Ménard & P Meneton

  3. Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Université Pierre et Marie Curie – Paris 6, UMRS 872, Paris, France

    G Georg, I Colombet, P Durieux, J Ménard & P Meneton

  4. Département d'Informatique Hospitalière, AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France

    I Colombet & P Durieux

Authors
  1. G Georg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I Colombet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P Durieux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J Ménard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P Meneton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G Georg.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Human Hypertension website (http://www.nature.com/jhh)

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Georg, G., Colombet, I., Durieux, P. et al. A comparative analysis of four clinical guidelines for hypertension management. J Hum Hypertens 22, 829–837 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2008.99

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2008.99

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links