| . | Clinical guidelines . | Expert consensus statements . | Technology reviews . | Clinical statements . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Evidence-based documents containing systematically developed recommendations with an explicit clinical scope and purpose | Expert position on a controversial/uncertain issue where high-level evidence is not available | Statements directed at an intervention and technology standardization | Comprehensive reports conveying the EACTS position on a particular topic |
| Source of evidence | RCTs are available and used; non-RCT data used if considered robust | Systematic review of non-randomized data | Systematic literature review | Review of the literature |
| Process | Systematic literature review/meta-analysis and critical appraisal of the evidence by Task Force members in collaboration with EAO or clinical methodologist | Consensus based on literature review by Task Force members who contribute with their expertise and knowledge to statements about best practice without formal recommendations | Task Force members review the literature and determine the data to be extracted | Expert panel |
| Review | Reviewers selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | EACTS Council |
| Length | Up to 30 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 10 pages |
| . | Clinical guidelines . | Expert consensus statements . | Technology reviews . | Clinical statements . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Evidence-based documents containing systematically developed recommendations with an explicit clinical scope and purpose | Expert position on a controversial/uncertain issue where high-level evidence is not available | Statements directed at an intervention and technology standardization | Comprehensive reports conveying the EACTS position on a particular topic |
| Source of evidence | RCTs are available and used; non-RCT data used if considered robust | Systematic review of non-randomized data | Systematic literature review | Review of the literature |
| Process | Systematic literature review/meta-analysis and critical appraisal of the evidence by Task Force members in collaboration with EAO or clinical methodologist | Consensus based on literature review by Task Force members who contribute with their expertise and knowledge to statements about best practice without formal recommendations | Task Force members review the literature and determine the data to be extracted | Expert panel |
| Review | Reviewers selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | EACTS Council |
| Length | Up to 30 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 10 pages |
EACTS: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery; EAO: Evidence Analysis Organization; EJCTS : European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery ; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
| . | Clinical guidelines . | Expert consensus statements . | Technology reviews . | Clinical statements . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Evidence-based documents containing systematically developed recommendations with an explicit clinical scope and purpose | Expert position on a controversial/uncertain issue where high-level evidence is not available | Statements directed at an intervention and technology standardization | Comprehensive reports conveying the EACTS position on a particular topic |
| Source of evidence | RCTs are available and used; non-RCT data used if considered robust | Systematic review of non-randomized data | Systematic literature review | Review of the literature |
| Process | Systematic literature review/meta-analysis and critical appraisal of the evidence by Task Force members in collaboration with EAO or clinical methodologist | Consensus based on literature review by Task Force members who contribute with their expertise and knowledge to statements about best practice without formal recommendations | Task Force members review the literature and determine the data to be extracted | Expert panel |
| Review | Reviewers selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | EACTS Council |
| Length | Up to 30 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 10 pages |
| . | Clinical guidelines . | Expert consensus statements . | Technology reviews . | Clinical statements . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Evidence-based documents containing systematically developed recommendations with an explicit clinical scope and purpose | Expert position on a controversial/uncertain issue where high-level evidence is not available | Statements directed at an intervention and technology standardization | Comprehensive reports conveying the EACTS position on a particular topic |
| Source of evidence | RCTs are available and used; non-RCT data used if considered robust | Systematic review of non-randomized data | Systematic literature review | Review of the literature |
| Process | Systematic literature review/meta-analysis and critical appraisal of the evidence by Task Force members in collaboration with EAO or clinical methodologist | Consensus based on literature review by Task Force members who contribute with their expertise and knowledge to statements about best practice without formal recommendations | Task Force members review the literature and determine the data to be extracted | Expert panel |
| Review | Reviewers selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | Peer-review by experts selected by EACTS Guideline Committee, in collaboration with the EJCTS Editor-in-Chief | EACTS Council |
| Length | Up to 30 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 20 pages | Up to 10 pages |
EACTS: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery; EAO: Evidence Analysis Organization; EJCTS : European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery ; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
