RCOG guidelines: How evidence based are they?

By Gemma McKenzie

AIMS Journal, 2015, Vol 27 No 1

Prusova K, Tyler L, Churcher A and Lokugamage AU (2014) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines: How evidence-based are they? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Nov;34(8):706-11. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2014.920794

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) publishes guidelines in order to assist clinicians with decision making. The present study aimed to assess how many of those guidelines were backed up by best quality medical evidence.

Summary of the research

The researchers analysed the RCOG's 'Green-top Guidelines.' Each of these guidelines deals with a specific topic, and contains recommendations, which have been graded according to the quality of medical evidence backing them up. Prior to December 2007, the grades ranged from A to D, and after this date from A to E. In both cases the best kind of evidence was generally considered to be a randomised controlled trial (A), although post December 2007, this could also include either a metaanalysis or a systematic review. The lowest level type of evidence was considered to be based on the clinical experience of the guideline development group.

The researchers found that prior to December 2007, only 8% of the Green-top obstetric guidelines were based on the highest level of medical evidence, whereas 41% were based on the lowest type. Post December 2007, 8% were based on the highest level of medical evidence and 40% on the lowest. Of the gynaecology guidelines, before December 2007, 18% were graded A and 40% as D. After this date, the figures were 13% and 42% respectively.

The researchers concluded that the evidence backing up the majority of RCOG guidelines is based on clinical experience, expert opinion or low quality studies.

AIMS Comments

Although the researchers' conclusion is sobering, there are some general points worth noting. Firstly, attempting to categorise the evidence with a simple A to D/E grading may be too crude to truly assess the quality of the evidence. Secondly, conducting randomised controlled trials within some areas of obstetrics and gynaecology may cause practical and ethical dilemmas. For example, given that women have been led to believe that longer pregnancies are dangerous, how many would feel confident to be part of a trial that attempted to see what happens when a pregnancy goes beyond 42 weeks? Thirdly, this study does not consider the midwifery guidelines produced by the Royal College of Midwives (RCM).

The researchers also pointed out that the existence of research in a particular area does not necessarily guide best practice. For example, following a review, the Cochrane Collaboration1 concluded that it could not recommend the use of partograms as part of standard labour care. However, partograms are still considered fundamental to clinical practice and are regularly used.

Given that the majority of the RCOG guidelines are based on expert opinion and not the highest quality evidence, this begs the question of how much weight practitioners are putting on those guidelines. Do they understand and take into account the grading system? Although the RCOG suggests that clinicians should do otherwise, are medical professionals simply following the guidelines blindly, seeing them as rules that must be rigidly upheld? Are the guidelines being followed as a form of defensive medicine, even if a practitioner feels an alternative course of action would be preferable? Are they discussing the quality of the underpinning evidence with pregnant women so that they can make the best decision for themselves and their baby? The researchers' conclusion is also relevant to a pregnant woman who is told that, for example, the RCOG guideline recommends a caesarean section in her situation. She may presume that this recommendation is based on hard evidence.

This has implications for informed consent.

A further issue with the heavy reliance on small numbers of experts' opinion to form guidelines is the risk of bias and consequently of error.

Interestingly, a similar study was carried out in the US.2 It found that only 25.5% of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' guidelines were based on the highest level of medical evidence and that 34.8% were based on the lowest. The study also noted that when the RCOG recommendations were compared to the American College's, only 28% were the same, 56% were not comparable and 16% were opposite. This raises the question of accuracy, and also the issue of whether there is such a thing as 'best practice'. Might it therefore be preferable to focus on woman-centred rather than guideline-centred care? Health practitioners would then be able to draw on the best upto- date research and also use their professional judgement to help women make their own decisions.

Although initially shocking, the results of this study only paint part of the picture. To get a more accurate perspective, we need to consider whether there is any feasible way of creating more robust research, how exactly clinicians are using the guidelines, and whether this is ultimately having a negative effect on women, their pregnancies, babies and births.

Gemma McKenzie is a mother of three and about to embark on a PhD researching informed consent within the maternity services


  1. Lavender T et al (2008) Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4): CD005461
  2. Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Berghella V, Siddiqui D (2010) Comparison of two national guidelines in obstetrics: American versus Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, AM J Perinatal 2010;27:763-70

Latest Content


« »

Making Decisions

AIMS Journal, 2017, Vol 29 No 3 A huge welcome to readers old and new! The AIMS Journal, the backbone of our work for nearly 60 years, is now entirely available online, t…

Read more

Monitoring babies during labour: wh…

AIMS Journal, 2017, Vol 29 No 3 Jo Dagustun reports on the INFANT trial study day in October 2017 This national (central Birmingham based) free-to-attend study day on the…

Read more

What AIMS did for me: Ann Roberts

AIMS Journal, 2017, Vol 29 No 3 Ann Roberts shares her story of how AIMS helped her back in 1983 I first contacted AIMS 34 years ago (1983), when I was pregnant with my s…

Read more


« »

MBRRACE-UK ‘Saving Lives, Improving…

To register your interest please email conference@npeu.ox.ac.uk or keep an eye on our website https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/bookings . Earlybird bookings will open…

Read more

Midwifery Today Conference “Birthin…

17–21 October 2018 Further Details

Read more


AIMS AGM 2018 All members welcome! Please email secretary@aims.org.uk if you plan to attend to help us to judge numbers, or if you wish to send apologies 10 for 10.30 sta…

Read more

Latest Campaigns

« »

Dr. Ágnes Geréb, Hungarian Midwife…

Dr. Ágnes Geréb is a Hungarian obstetrician and midwife who has been under house arrest following her support for women outside of the obstetric system. March 2018: ENCA…

Read more

"Promoting professionalism, reformi…

AIMS submitted our response to this consultation on the 23 January 2018. A number of regulators, including the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the Professional Standards A…

Read more

The backlash against Normal Birth

Beverley Lawrence Beech At an AIMS AGM it is customary for the Chair to give an account of the activities of the Committee during the year. I am not going to do that this…

Read more