An Additional Criterion to Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Might Increase the Efficiency in Guideline Development for Rare Diseases: Results of a National Delphi Study

Iméze Jorieke Hieltjes, Charlotte M. W. Gaasterland, Roel Bakx, Silvia C. W. van Breukelen, Robbert J. H. Ensink, Charlotte van Esch, Raoul C. M. Hennekam, Ilse van Herk, Marieke Hermsen, Anja M. C. Horemans, Hester Rippen, Bart P. C. van de Warrenburg, Anne-Marie van Wermeskerken, Johanna H. van der Lee
{"title":"An Additional Criterion to Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Might Increase the Efficiency in Guideline Development for Rare Diseases: Results of a National Delphi Study","authors":"Iméze Jorieke Hieltjes,&nbsp;Charlotte M. W. Gaasterland,&nbsp;Roel Bakx,&nbsp;Silvia C. W. van Breukelen,&nbsp;Robbert J. H. Ensink,&nbsp;Charlotte van Esch,&nbsp;Raoul C. M. Hennekam,&nbsp;Ilse van Herk,&nbsp;Marieke Hermsen,&nbsp;Anja M. C. Horemans,&nbsp;Hester Rippen,&nbsp;Bart P. C. van de Warrenburg,&nbsp;Anne-Marie van Wermeskerken,&nbsp;Johanna H. van der Lee","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Rare diseases significantly impact patients, and there is a need for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or other guidance documents as well as tools to assess their trustworthiness.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The goal was to define a minimum set of criteria for the appraisal of guidance documents for rare diseases. Guidance documents include CPGs, but also other, less stringently developed documents to guide clinical practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study Design</h3>\n \n <p>In 2022, we started a Delphi consensus procedure to develop criteria specifically for rare disease guidance documents. Participants were 23 delegates from 18 medical specialists' associations, 3 patient organizations for rare diseases, and 2 other medical organizations in the Netherlands. The Delphi procedure consisted of three rounds. In the first round, the participants were asked whether six prespecified criteria, selected from AGREE II, were relevant, and to add other important criteria. In the second round, all collected criteria were prioritized, and in the third round, the criteria with the highest priority were ordered by the participants. In an online meeting, the remaining criteria were reformulated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Six of the seven final criteria correspond to the AGREE II criteria. The participants proposed a new criterion focusing on efficient use of limited resources, namely the inventory of problem areas as a basis for specific clinical questions to which the recommendations would provide answers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The current set of criteria for rare disease guidance documents helps evaluate the trustworthiness and enhance equitable healthcare quality for rare disease patients. Although the aim was that the minimum set of criteria reduces the time and effort for developing quality criteria for rare diseases, the participants' perceived need for methodological rigour prevailed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70040","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gin2.70040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Rare diseases significantly impact patients, and there is a need for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or other guidance documents as well as tools to assess their trustworthiness.

Objective

The goal was to define a minimum set of criteria for the appraisal of guidance documents for rare diseases. Guidance documents include CPGs, but also other, less stringently developed documents to guide clinical practice.

Study Design

In 2022, we started a Delphi consensus procedure to develop criteria specifically for rare disease guidance documents. Participants were 23 delegates from 18 medical specialists' associations, 3 patient organizations for rare diseases, and 2 other medical organizations in the Netherlands. The Delphi procedure consisted of three rounds. In the first round, the participants were asked whether six prespecified criteria, selected from AGREE II, were relevant, and to add other important criteria. In the second round, all collected criteria were prioritized, and in the third round, the criteria with the highest priority were ordered by the participants. In an online meeting, the remaining criteria were reformulated.

Results

Six of the seven final criteria correspond to the AGREE II criteria. The participants proposed a new criterion focusing on efficient use of limited resources, namely the inventory of problem areas as a basis for specific clinical questions to which the recommendations would provide answers.

Conclusion

The current set of criteria for rare disease guidance documents helps evaluate the trustworthiness and enhance equitable healthcare quality for rare disease patients. Although the aim was that the minimum set of criteria reduces the time and effort for developing quality criteria for rare diseases, the participants' perceived need for methodological rigour prevailed.

研究和评价指南II的附加评价标准可能提高罕见病指南制定的效率:一项全国德尔菲研究的结果
罕见病对患者的影响很大,需要临床实践指南(CPGs)或其他指导性文件以及评估其可信度的工具。目的为罕见病指导文件的评价确定一套最低标准。指导性文件包括cpg,但也有其他不太严格的文件来指导临床实践。研究设计在2022年,我们启动了德尔菲共识程序,专门为罕见病指导文件制定标准。与会者是来自荷兰18个医学专家协会、3个罕见病患者组织和2个其他医疗组织的23名代表。德尔菲程序包括三轮。在第一轮中,参与者被问及从“同意II”中选择的六个预先指定的标准是否相关,并添加其他重要标准。在第二轮中,对所有收集到的标准进行优先级排序,在第三轮中,参与者对优先级最高的标准进行排序。在一次在线会议上,重新制定了剩余的标准。结果7项最终标准中有6项符合AGREE II标准。与会者提出了一个新的标准,侧重于有效利用有限的资源,即问题领域的清单,作为建议将提供答案的具体临床问题的基础。结论现行罕见病指导文件标准有助于评估罕见病患者的可信度,提高罕见病患者的公平医疗质量。虽然目的是减少制定罕见病质量标准的时间和精力,但与会者认为需要严谨的方法占了上风。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书