title: Study of perceptions of the extent to which guideline recommendations are binding: a survey of commonly used terminology.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Doctors are more likely to implement guidelines in their everyday practice if the recommendations contained in them are understandable. So far, there has been little standardization in the wording of guideline recommendations. It would be important to know how certain terms are understood by guideline users. In this study, doctors were asked in a survey about what they considered to be the level of obligation carried by various formulations that are commonly used in guidelines to recommend particular courses of action.
  
  
  METHODS
  An online survey of physicians (mostly dermatologists) was carried out in which they were asked to rate, on a visual analog scale, what they perceived to be the level of obligation of various common formulations for guideline recommendations.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The terms "muss" (must) and "darf nicht" (must not) were interpreted as being maximally binding. The two closely related German words "soll" (shall) and "sollte" (should) were considered highly binding, as were negative formulations such as "wird nicht empfohlen" (is not recommended). The perceived level of obligation of "soll" did not differ from that of "sollte" to any detectable extent, nor was there any detectable distinction between the various negative formulations studied. Formulations with the words "wird empfohlen" (is recommended), "kann empfohlen werden" (can be recommended), or other "kann" (can) expressions were considered to be only mildly or moderately binding. In general, there was marked variation in the perceived level of obligation of formulations located in the low and middle ranges.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These findings suggest that guideline users do not necessarily perceive recommendation strengths as the guideline authors intended. It might be better if positive recommendations came in only two different strengths, while a single recommendation strength might suffice for negative ones. Further studies should shed more light on this question.
authors.affiliation: Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin.
authors.forename: Alexander
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Nast
authors.forename: Birte
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Sporbeck
authors.forename: Anja
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Jacobs
authors.forename: Ricardo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Erdmann
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Roll
authors.forename: Uli
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Sauerland
authors.forename: Stefanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rosumeck
mesh_terms: D032882:Comprehension; D003625:Data Collection; D004282:Documentation / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D064420:Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; D005858:Germany; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D009626:Terminology as Topic