Background: As part of its new strategy, Belgian Red Cross-Flanders underpins all its activities, from blood supply to emergency aid, with evidence-based practice. In searching for a rigorous and realistic methodology for guideline and systematic review development, we encountered a wide variety in terminology and methodology used in the field of evidence-based practice. Terminologies that are currently being used by different organisations and institutions include ‘systematic reviews, systematic literature searches, evidence-based guidelines, rapid reviews, pragmatic systematic reviews and rapid response service’. It is not always clear what the definition and the methodology behind these terms is, and whether they are used consistently.

Objectives: To clarify the methodology that we use to develop both evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews and thereby encourage other organisations and institutions to be transparent about their used methodology.

Methods: We created a charter in which we describe our approach to develop evidence-based guidelines, versus systematic reviews, in a timely and cost-conscious way, based on existing methodologies.

Results: In this charter, we define the terminology and methodology used by Belgian Red Cross-Flanders. Criteria for making methodological choices and details on our used methodology are given. We focus on the development of scoping reviews, practice guidelines (following the AGREE II checklist) and systematic reviews (following the methodology described in the Cochrane handbook).

Conclusions: A methodology for development of practice guidelines that takes into account time and resource constraints could be inspiring for other organisations who want to use the evidence-based methodology to support their activities. In addition, we recommend authors of guidelines and systematic reviews to be transparent about their used methodology, e.g. by appending a clarifying methods section to their guidelines and/or by publishing a methodological charter.