Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)


Print Feedback Export to File
7291638 
Journal Article 
Review 
Obstetric Recommendations in American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletins versus UpToDate: a comparison 
Myer, EN; Too, GT; Hammad, IA; Babbar, S; Martin, CE; Hill, JB; Blackwell, SB; Chauhan, SP 
2015 
Yes 
American Journal of Perinatology
ISSN: 0735-1631
EISSN: 1098-8785 
32 
5 
427-444 
English 
25545450 
WOS:000352807900003 
OBJECTIVE: To compare the obstetric recommendations in American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice bulletins (PB) with similar topics in UpToDate (UTD).

STUDY DESIGN: We accessed all obstetric PB and cross-searched UTD (May 1999-May 2013). We analyzed only the PB which had corresponding UTD chapter with graded recommendations (level A-C). To assess comparability of recommendations for each obstetric topic, two maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialists categorized the statement as similar, dissimilar, or incomparable. Simple and weighted kappa statistics were calculated to assess agreement between the two raters.

RESULTS: We identified 46 ACOG obstetric PB and 86 UTD chapters. There were 50% fewer recommendations in UTD than in PB (181 vs. 365). The recommendations being categorized as level A, B, or C was significantly different (p < 0.001) for the two guidelines. While the overall concordance rate between the two MFM subspecialists was 83% regarding the recommendations for the same topic as similar, dissimilar, or incomparable, the agreement was moderate (kappa, 0.56; 95% confidence intervals, 0.48-0.65).

CONCLUSION: Though obstetricians have two sources for graded recommendations, incongruity among them may be a source of consternation. Congruent recommendations from ACOG and UTD could enhance compliance and potentially optimize outcomes.