• Jack Manquen, Tyler Combs, Anya Mazur-Mosiewicz, Donald Sanders, Michael Schiesel, Joshua Gordon, Michelle Farabough, and Matt Vassar.
• Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, 1111 West 17th Street, Tulsa, OK 74107, United States. Electronic address: jack.manquen@okstate.edu.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 1; 37 (1): 73-79.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the temporal relationship between clinical practice guideline development and subsequent research performed, with the goal of providing more data on areas of sparse evidence that serve to underlie guideline recommendations. We aimed to assess the quality of current research efforts to address the American College of Emergency Physicians guideline and to provide suggestions for future research of mild traumatic brain injury.MethodsWe identified clinical practice guideline recommendations with low levels of underlying evidence and searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Portal to determine whether subsequent research has reflected an effort to address guideline recommendations.ResultsFew currently registered clinical trials attempt to focus on clinical practice guideline recommendations where the basis of evidence is weak, and even fewer might benefit future iterations of the guideline due to multiple problems in study design and reporting.ConclusionsThe amount of research dedicated to investigation of mild traumatic brain injury continues to be sparse and of poor quality. Study results should always be posted, even if the null hypothesis is confirmed. Efforts to improve the evidence base of a guideline should be realized by designing studies that directly assess and speak to the questions posed by guideline authors.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…