Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are standardized recommendations to optimize patient care, and their credibility depends on a robust foundation of evidence.

Option A (Scientific evidence): This is the correct answer. CPHG guidelines must be grounded in scientific evidence, such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses, to ensure they reflect best practices. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “Clinical practice guidelines are developed based on scientific evidence to ensure they are effective and aligned with current standards of care” (Domain 4). This aligns with organizations like the National Guideline Clearinghouse, which require evidence-based methodology for guideline development.

Option B (Computer-generated data): Computer-generated data (e.g., predictive analytics) may support decision-making but is not a primary basis for CPGs, which require peer-reviewed, clinical evidence.

Option C (Cost-benefit analysis): While cost considerations may influence implementation, CPGs prioritize clinical effectiveness and patient outcomes over financial metrics.

Option D (Utilization review criteria): Utilization review focuses on resource use and appropriateness of care, not the development of evidence-based guidelines.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 4: Performance and Process Improvement, Objective 4.4, “Support the development and use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines,” underscores that CPGs must be rooted in scientific evidence to ensure quality and standardization. The NAHQ study guide further notes that guidelines are typically developed by expert panels reviewing peer-reviewed literature to establish recommendations.

Rationale: Scientific evidence ensures CPGs are reliable, reproducible, and effective, aligning with the IOM’s aim of effective care (delivering care based on best evidence). This distinguishes CPGs from other tools that may incorporate non-clinical factors.