An evaluation of the guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada

References

• Association CM. 2011. Clinical practice guidelines in Canada: towards a national strategy. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Burgers JS, van Everdingen JJE. 2004. Beyond the evidence in clinical guidelines. The Lancet 364:392–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles C, Gafni A, Freeman E. 2011. The evidence-based medicine model of clinical practice: scientific teaching or belief-based preaching? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17:597–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detsky AS. 2006. Sources of bias for authors of clinical practice guidelines. Canadian Medical Association Journal 175:1033–1035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirnagl U, Lauritzen M. 2010. Fighting publication bias: introducing the negative results section. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 30:1263–1264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Fierer N, Knight R. 2010. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proceedings of the National Academic Sciences of the United States of America 107:11971–11975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Examination CTF. O T. P. H. 1979. The periodic health examination. Canadian Medical Association Journal 121:1193–1254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD. 2006a. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 3. Group composition and consultation process. Health Research Policy and Systems 4:15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD. 2006b. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 5. Group processes. Health Research Policy and Systems 4:17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D, et al. 2006. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 194:1002–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N, Group EBMR. 2014. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? British Medical Journal 348:g3725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. 2000. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. The Lancet 356:1375–1383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotaska A. 2004. Inappropriate use of randomised trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery. British Medical Journal 329:1039–1042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Hf, Zhang Hl, Zhu J. 2009. Methodologists are not qualified to write clinical guidelines. The Lancet 374:1326–1327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAlister FA, van Diepen S, Padwal RS, Johnson JA, Majumdar SR. 2007. How evidence-based are the recommendations in evidence-based guidelines? PLoS Medicine 4:e250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan R. 2003. Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 1: entanglement. British Medical Journal 326:1189–1192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olatunbosun OA, Edouard L, Pierson RA. 1998. Physicians' attitudes toward evidence based obstetric practice: a questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal 316:365–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prusova, K, Churcher, Tyler LA, Lokugamage AU. 2014. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines: how evidence-based are they? Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 34:706–711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Visser GH. 2005. The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 112:205–209.
   Google Scholar
• Swinglehurst D, Greenhalgh T, Roberts C. 2012. Computer templates in chronic disease management: ethnographic case study in general practice. British Medical Journal (Open) 2:e001754.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonelli MR. 1998. The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine. Academic Medicine 73:1234–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Eyk N, van Schalkwyk J, Committee ID. 2012. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gynaecologic procedures. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 34:382–391.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vlemmix F, Bergenheneqouwen L, Schaaf JM, Ensing S, Rosman AN, Ravelli AC, et al. 2014. Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 93:888–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolf SH, Battista RN, Anderson GM, Logan AG, Wang E, Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health E. 1990. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations A report by the Canadian task force on the periodic health examination. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43:891–905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright JD, Pawar N, Gonzalez JSR, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Simpson LL, et al. 2011. Scientific evidence underlying the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Practice Bulletins. Obstetrics & Gynecology 118:505–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright JM. 2007. Practice guidelines by specialist societies are surprisingly deficient. International Journal of Clinical Practice 61:1076–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar