Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SAGES guidelines: an appraisal of their quality and value by SAGES members

  • SAGES Guidelines
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee develops evidence-based guidelines for practicing surgeons using standard methodology. Our objective was to survey the SAGES membership regarding guidelines’ quality, use, and value and identify topics of interest for new guideline development.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was emailed in October 2019 to SAGES members. Respondents were asked 18 questions on their use and evaluation of SAGES guidelines and SAGES reviews and to provide suggestions for new guideline topics and areas of improvement. The survey was open for 6 weeks with a 3-week reminder.

Results

Of 548 responders, most were minimally invasive (41%) or general surgeons (33%). There was an even distribution between academic (46%) and non-academic practice (24% private practice, 23% hospital employed). Most used SAGES guidelines frequently (22%) or occasionally (68%) and found them to be of value (83%), above average quality (86%), and easy to use (74%). While most stated it was important (35%) or very important (58%) that SAGES continues to follow “rigorous guidelines development processes,” common suggestions were for more timely updates and improved web access. Of 442 overlapping topic suggestions, 60% fell into overarching categories of hernia, bariatric, robotic, HPB, and colorectal surgery.

Conclusions

The SAGES guidelines are used frequently and valued by its users for their quality and content. Topics proposed by SAGES members and valuable insight from this survey can guide creation of new guidelines and refinement of established guidelines and processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thoma A, Eaves FF III (2015) A brief history of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and the Contributions of Dr David Sackett. Aesthet Surg J 35:261–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines (2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Washington (DC). https://doi.org/10.17226/13058.

  4. Antoniou SA, Tsokani S, Mavridis D, Lopez-Cano M, Antoniou GA, Stefanidis D, Francis NK, Smart N, Muysoms FE, Morales-Conde S, Bonjer HJ, Brouwers MC (2019) Guideline assessment project: filling the GAP in surgical guidelines: quality improvement initiative by an international working group. Ann Surg 269:642–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.), Available from gradepro.org

  6. Stefanidis D, Richardson WS, Fanelli RD (2010) What is the utilization of the SAGES guidelines by its members? Surg Endosc 24:3210–3215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hope WW, Richardson W, Fanelli R, Stefanidis D (2014) How do SAGES members rate its guidelines? Surg Endosc 28:1153–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Qualtrics (2019), Qualtrics, Provo, UT, https://www.qualtrics.com

  9. Institute of Medicine (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust: standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  10. WHO (2012) WHO handbook for guideline development. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ransohoff DF, Pignone M, Sox HC (2013) How to decide whether a clinical practice guideline is trustworthy. JAMA 309:139–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Higuchi KS, Davies B, Ploeg J (2017) Sustaining guideline implementation: a multisite perspective on activities, challenges and supports. J Clin Nurs 26:4413–4424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Conklin J, Farrell B, Suleman S (2019) Implementing deprescribing guidelines into frontline practice: barriers and facilitators. Res Social Adm Pharm 15:796–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frantsve-Hawley J, Rindal DB (2019) Translational research: bringing science to the provider through guideline implementation. Dent Clin North Am 63:129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewis S, Chowdhury E, Stockdale D, Kennedy V (2020) Assessment and management of tinnitus: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 368:m976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bromham N, Kallioinen M, Hoskin P, Davies RJ (2020) Colorectal cancer: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 368:m461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Webster K, Eadon H, Fishburn S, Kumar G (2019) Ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage: diagnosis and initial management: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 367:l6283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boffa RJ, Constanti M, Floyd CN, Wierzbicki AS (2019) Hypertension in adults: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 367:l5310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Murray IR, Murray AD, Wordie SJ, Oliver CW, Simpson A, Haddad FS (2017) What surgeons need to know about infographics. Bone Joint J 99:1557–1558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gad M, Salem A, Oortwijn W, Hill R, Godman B (2020) Mapping of current obstacles for rationalizing use of medicines (CORUM) in Europe: current situation and potential solutions. Front Pharmacol 11:144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yun GW, Trumbo CW (2000) Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, & web form. J Comput-Mediated Commun 6:JCMC613

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the SAGES members that responded to our survey and provided their valuable insights into our guidelines.

Funding

No external funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Rebecca C. Dirks & Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. Department of Surgery, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA

    Danielle Walsh

  3. Division of Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, NorthShore University Healthsystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Stephen Haggerty

  4. Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Geoffrey P. Kohn

  5. Department of Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    Aurora Pryor

  6. 11725 North Illinois Street, Suite 350, Carmel, IN, 46032, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

Authors
  1. Rebecca C. Dirks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danielle Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Haggerty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geoffrey P. Kohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aurora Pryor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Stefanidis.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Dirks has equity interest in Johnson & Johnson unrelated to this project. Dr. Haggerty reports personal fees from Medtronic (consulting), personal fees from W.L. Gore (teaching honoraria), and travel expense from Intuitive, outside the submitted work. Dr. Pryor is a speaker for Ethicon, Gore, Merck and Stryker. She is a consultant for Obalon. Dr. Stefanidis has received research support to his institution by ExplORer Surgical Inc. and Bard, which are unrelated to this project. Drs. Kohn and Walsh have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOCX 193 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dirks, R.C., Walsh, D., Haggerty, S. et al. SAGES guidelines: an appraisal of their quality and value by SAGES members. Surg Endosc 35, 1493–1499 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08323-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08323-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation