GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT AND OBJECTIVES
The work group for the development of these guidelines comprised paediatricians and a pharmacist from various Ministry of Health facilities. These guidelines are based on the findings of health technology assessment on the same topic, as well as a systematic review of current medical literature, taking into consideration local medical practice and local microbiology patterns and trends of antimicrobial resistance. The ranking of evidence is based on a modified version of that suggested by the Catalonia Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTAR) Spain, while the grading of recommendations in these guidelines emulates those used by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The draft guidelines were posted on both the Ministry of Health Malaysia and Academy of Medicine, Malaysia websites for comment and feedback. The ranking of evidence is based on a modified version of that suggested by the Catalonia Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTAR) Spain, while the grading of recommendations in these guidelines emulates those used by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). These guidelines have also been presented to the Technical Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines and Health Technology Assessment and Clinical Practice Guidelines Council, Ministry of Health Malaysia for review and approval
The aim of this guideline is to aid health care providers doctors in general practice and pediatricians, in clinical decision making by providing well-balanced evidence based information on The main aim of these guidelines is to assist health care providers in clinical decision making by providing well-balanced information on childhood immunisation. It also hoped to decrease the incidence of complications.
Thisis guideline is developed to apply to all children.
Thiese guidelines isare meant for all health care providers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE SCALE
| | | | |Level |Strength of evidence |Study design | | |Good |Meta-analysis of RCT, Systematic review | | |Good |Large sample RCT | | |Good to Fair |Small sample RCT | | | |Non-randomised controlled prospective trial | | |Fair |Non-randomised controlled prospective trial with historical control | | |Fair |Cohort studies | | |Poor |Case-control studies | | |Poor |Non-controlled clinical series, descriptive studies multi-centre | | |Poor |Expert committees, consensus, case reports, anecdotes |
(Adapted from Catalonian Agency for Health Technology Assessment & Research, [CAHTAR] Spain) Source Adapted From Catalonian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (CAHTA), Spain
GRADE OF RECOMMENDATIONS
| |At least one meta analysis, systematic review, or RCT, or evidence rated as good and directly applicable to the target | |A |population...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document