Background and aim: The value of a multidisciplinary group and patient engagement in guideline groups is uncertain. We compared the recommendations of two guidelines that used the same data during the same time frame but with different participants to obtain a "real world" perspective on influence of the composition of guideline groups.
Methods: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recently updated their clinical practice guidelines for the management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). Both the CAG and ACG used the same methodology and methodologist and were presented with the same data for interpretation. The ACG group consisted of predominantly academic gastroenterologists, while the CAG group also included general practitioners, a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a patient representative. The CAG group were also asked what components of the group were valuable.
Results: There were 14 statements with the same or similar recommendations. There were 10 statements in the CAG guideline not addressed by the ACG guideline and five recommendations where the opposite was the case. There was one statement that the two groups both addressed, but each group came to different conclusions. CAG members were in 100% agreement that involving a patient and having a multidisciplinary team was valuable and may have played a role in these differing interpretations of the same data in an IBS guideline.
Conclusions: There has been little uptake of patient involvement and multidisciplinary teams in guideline groups. However, this study provides a unique example of added benefit through broader group representation.
Keywords: Clinical practice guidelines; IBS; Irritable bowel syndrome; Multidisciplinary team; Patient engagement.