Clinical and Public Health Guidelines最新文献

{"title":"Needs assessment for updating IOM standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines","authors":"Christopher Wolfkiel,&nbsp;Areeba Ahmed,&nbsp;Sandra Zelman Lewis,&nbsp;Mary Nix,&nbsp;Murad Alam","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70026","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (CPG Standards) and Standards for Systematic Reviews (SR Standards), established in 2011, have significantly influenced evidence-based healthcare. However, the rapid evolution in medical practices and technologies necessitates a reassessment of these standards to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness in modern healthcare.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study employed a survey approach targeting professional guideline developers. The first survey assessed the general need for updating IOM standards (both CPG and SR Standards), while the second focused on specific CPG Standards, soliciting detailed feedback on their current relevance and areas needing revision. Participants were purposively targeted from various medical specialties and roles in guideline development.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The General Need for Updating IOM Standards Survey garnered 22 responses, and the Specific CPG Standards Survey received 25 responses. A significant majority of respondents indicated the need for revising both the CPG and SR Standards. Key areas identified for CPG standards revision included conflict-of-interest management, incorporation of real-world evidence and artificial intelligence, and systematic review processes. The responses highlighted the challenges of high compliance costs and the need for more practical execution guidance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study highlights an urgent need for updating both sets of IOM Standards. The rapidly changing healthcare landscape, characterized by technological advancements and evolving medical evidence, necessitates a dynamic and responsive approach to guideline development. Establishing an authoritative body for periodic assessment and revision of these standards is crucial to ensure that CPGs remain scientifically robust, practical, and relevant to contemporary healthcare needs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144140397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recommendations for the management of GnRH-ant for ovarian stimulation in the assistant reproductive process: Benefits and harms for different ovarian response population","authors":"Rong Li,&nbsp;Rui Yang,&nbsp;Junhao Yan,&nbsp;Yang Song,&nbsp;Yunxia Cao,&nbsp;Zijiang Chen,&nbsp;Chenchen Xu,&nbsp;Zhan Zhao,&nbsp;Yichun Guan,&nbsp;Fei Gong,&nbsp;Guimin Hao,&nbsp;Hefeng Huang,&nbsp;Li Jin,&nbsp;Fenghua Liu,&nbsp;Jiayin Liu,&nbsp;Xiaoyan Liang,&nbsp;Xiaolin La,&nbsp;Yun Sun,&nbsp;Xiaohong Wang,&nbsp;Yanwen Xu,&nbsp;Cuilian Zhang,&nbsp;Jie Qiao","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70022","url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Introduction:</b> Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRH-ant) are commonly used during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process to prevent premature luteinization and to ensure follicles mature synchronously. The 2020 guideline from European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) recommends the use of GnRH-ant for patients with varying levels of ovarian response. However, the question of how to manage the protocol pathway for these patients requires further investigation.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> The current clinical practice guideline (CPG) adheres to the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommended development process, and covers eight clinical questions, all focusing on the application of GnRH antagonists in COS. We conducted Cochrane-standard systematic reviews, utilized GRADE for evidence certainty assessment, and employed GRADE Evidence-to-Decision Framework to derive recommendations. We pre-defined clinically important outcomes, and the common critical outcomes shared by all clinical questions as follows: live birth rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). We strictly followed the RIGHT guideline and AGREE-II criteria throughout the CPG development.</p><p><b>Recommendations:</b> The guideline development group (GDG) agreed on 14 recommendations on the application of GnRH-ant during COS. In summary, low certainty of evidence supported the benefits of using GnRH-ant protocol in IVF patients with high ovarian response (HOR), following with very low certainty of evidence to use Oral Contraceptive Pill (OCP) or estrogen as pretreatment in normal ovarian response (NOR) patients, low certainty of evidence to use fixed GnRH-ant protocol and very low certainty of evidence to use GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) add on trigger. For patients using GnRH-ant protocol, very low certainty of evidence in HOR patients and low certainty of evidence in NOR patients supported the “freeze-all” strategy considering the potential risk associated with fresh embryo transfer. However, multiple fresh embryo transfer may still provide benefits in some cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144100665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"EAES Rapid Recommendation Update Protocol: TaTME for Rectal Cancer – With ESCP and ESGAR Participation","authors":"Bright Huo,&nbsp;Alberto Arezzo,&nbsp;Dimitris Mavridis,&nbsp;Stavros A. Antoniou","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70028","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was developed to overcome anatomical constraints related to TME. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) released clinical recommendations to support gastrointestinal surgeons in the treatment of rectal cancer, but contemporary evidence is available.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Questions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>1. Should patients receive TaTME or laparoscopic TME (laTME) for the surgical treatment of patients with low- or mid-rectal cancers? 2. Should patients receive TaTME or robotic TME (roTME) for the surgical treatment of patients with low- or mid-rectal cancers?</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will develop a rapid guideline update on the surgical management of low- and mid-rectal cancers with TaTME compared to TME. Guideline development will begin with a systematic review and meta-analysis performed by our systematic review and statistical analysis groups, followed by appraisal of the certainty of the evidence, and an in-person consensus meeting among an international, multidisciplinary expert panel using a structured evidence-to-decision framework. The panel will consist of six general surgeons, a radiologist, a pathologist, two patient representatives, and two external advisors. Following the consensus meeting, recommendations will be finalized through a Delphi consensus process. This guideline will adhere to methodological standards according to GIN, GRADE, and AGREE-S. Conflicts of interest will be declared by all participating members and addressed before guideline development. This clinical practice guideline will be presented at international congresses and published in the journal of <i>Surgical Endoscopy &amp; Other Interventional Techniques</i>.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70028","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144091643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Awareness of adapting clinical practice guidelines to a local context","authors":"Dawid Pieper,&nbsp;Eva-Maria Behnke,&nbsp;Rieke Dumke,&nbsp;Christel Kehr-Fuckel,&nbsp;Carolin Radow,&nbsp;Nils Schulze,&nbsp;Markus Follmann,&nbsp;Corinna Schaefer,&nbsp;Robert Prill,&nbsp;Christian Kopkow,&nbsp;Carolin Bahns,&nbsp;Kyung-Eun (Anna) Choi,&nbsp;Lena Fischer","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70025","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Guideline recommendations are often not implemented in practice. This can be attributed to factors such as patient preferences and characteristics, structural conditions, personnel or other resources, as well as cultural or ethical aspects. Adaptations to the local context (e.g., regional or hospital) result in so-called locally adapted guidelines (LAGL), which could improve implementation. We aimed to assess the awareness of LAGL among guideline developers in Germany.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An online survey was conducted via LimeSurvey in May 2024. The questionnaire, designed based on literature and expert opinions, consisted of 23 items, predominantly with dichotomous response options. Recruitment was conducted via email. Direct contact addresses were identified using the German guideline registry (<i>n</i> = 397). Additionally, a mailing list distribution was conducted through the guidelines working group of the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine (<i>n</i> = 316). Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data cleaning and descriptive analysis were performed using Excel.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 63 questionnaires were fully completed. The most represented groups were physicians (65%) and methodologists (24%), most frequently in coordination (76%) or as group members (62%). The most judicious reasons for developing a LAGL were differences in patient populations (48%), currency of recommendations (46%), and patient values and preferences (44%). The most commonly cited likely reasons for developing a LAGL were economic considerations (32%), differences in patient populations (30%), and currency of recommendations (30%). Many respondents (59%) were aware of the possibility of adapting existing guidelines to the local context. Among these, approximately half (49%) had already locally adapted a guideline, with 75% using an adaptation framework.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>LAGLs are known among guideline developers in Germany and are generally developed using adaptation frameworks. Potential reasons for preparing LAGLs are diverse, with some discrepancies between perceived valid and likely reasons.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143908974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development of computable guidelines: GIN McMaster guideline development checklist extension for computable guidelines","authors":"Chirine Chehab,&nbsp;Stacy Lathrop,&nbsp;Christopher G. Harrod,&nbsp;James Kariuki,&nbsp;Derek Ritz,&nbsp;Maria Michaels","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70023","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Transforming Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) recommendations into computer readable language is a complex and ongoing process that requires significant resources, including time, expertise, and funds. The objective is to provide an extension of the widely used GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC) and Tool for the development of computable guidelines (CGs).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Based on an outcome from the Human Centered Design (HCD) workshop hosted by the Guidelines International Network North America (GIN-NA), a team was formed to develop the checklist extension. The team included guideline developers, researchers, implementers, and informaticists who reviewed the GDC and developed a list of additional requirements to help guideline developers author clearer, more implementable narrative guideline recommendations (referred to as knowledge level 1, or L1 recommendations) and ensure conformance-testable attributes of the different artifacts of clinical guideline recommendations. The team vetted this list with guideline development organizations and health informatics experts to validate it, for clarity, usability, and effectiveness. The team used an iterative process to determine the final extension components for CG development guidance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The team identified nine components that complement the topics included in GDC for developing, implementing, and adopting CG recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study demonstrates that the defined principles in the L1 Checklist, grounded in current guideline development standards, may significantly enhance the writing, development, and implementation of computable recommendations. Collaboration among guideline developers, implementers, and informaticists from the outset is crucial for achieving effective integration of these guidelines into clinical workflows. Future work should focus on assessing this extension within various ongoing learning initiatives and point-of-care digitization efforts, including the scholarly communications ecosystem and learning health systems, to further improve healthcare delivery.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143896987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Advancing health equity in the guideline enterprise","authors":"Andrea J. Darzi,&nbsp;Tamara Lotfi,&nbsp;Kian Torabiardakani","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70024","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Clinical and public health guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for key practice questions. By adopting an equity lens, guidelines can help reduce unjust or avoidable disparities in achieving optimal health outcomes. In line with this mandate, we highlight two key commentaries that offer globally relevant lessons for advancing equity in the guideline enterprise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In their contribution, Dewidar and colleagues underscore two central messages including the risks of neglecting equity considerations in guidelines and the transformative impact of addressing it meaningfully.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; They illustrate how the routine exclusion or marginal consideration of equity can lead to unintended consequences and perpetuate injustices in healthcare recommendations. For example, they discuss how earlier guidelines for leprosy, which failed to consider equity and human right concepts, led to harmful policies such as involuntary isolation resulting in stigma, poor outcomes, and systemic discrimination. In contrast, more recent guidelines have taken a rights-based and equity-oriented approach, emphasizing community integration, early diagnosis, and social inclusion through community-based care and education. The authors showcase several WHO guidelines that effectively integrate equity principles to improve care for underserved populations such as the nonsurgical management of chronic primary low back pain which emphasizes accessibility for older adults through assistive products and infrastructure adaptations. Collectively, these examples demonstrate how equity-informed guidelines can reduce disease burden, enhance access, and improve health outcomes for vulnerable groups. Dewidar and colleagues conclude by calling for scalable methods to support equity integration in guidelines in ways that adapt to different resource levels and evolving evidence.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a complementary commentary, Persaud emphasizes that guidelines can either champion or inadvertently undermine health equity, depending on how deliberately equity is embedded.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; While equity is often mentioned in passing within introductions or methods sections, it is too rarely reflected in the recommendations themselves. Persaud's commentary illustrates how such omissions can perpetuate disparities, especially when guidelines fail to prioritize interventions for disadvantaged communities or ignore settings where structural failures exist. An example of this is in emergency departments, where a lack of formal follow-up plan can turn short-term opioid prescriptions into long-term misuse, particularly among patients who have limited access to primary care. By contrast, guidelines that deliberately incorporate equity, through methods such as inclusive panel recruitment, robust data collection on diverse populations, and targeted recommendations, help ensure that benefits reach those most in need. For instance, HPV self-staffing al","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143827046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A cross-sectional review of policies on conflicts of interest and funding in the development manuals of practice guidelines","authors":"Yangqin Xun,&nbsp;Qiangqiang Guo,&nbsp;Zijun Wang,&nbsp;Akihiko Ozaki,&nbsp;Ying Zhu,&nbsp;Nan Yang,&nbsp;Yajia Sun,&nbsp;Shouyuan Wu,&nbsp;Mengjuan Ren,&nbsp;Ping Wang,&nbsp;Hui Liu,&nbsp;Hui Lan,&nbsp;Yunlan Liu,&nbsp;Qianling Shi,&nbsp;Susan L. Norris,&nbsp;Ivan D. Florez,&nbsp;Joseph L. Mathew,&nbsp;Myeong Soo Lee,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen,&nbsp;Janne Estill","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Importance</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Policies on conflicts of interest (COI) and funding are essential to reduce the risk of bias in the guideline development process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To collate and review the content related to COI and funding policies from guideline development handbooks.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study design and setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed from its inception until September 10, 2021, websites of key guideline development organizations and Google for guideline development manuals that included COI or funding policies, and performed a cross-sectional review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifty-seven guideline development manuals were included. Amongst the 54 handbooks containing a COI policy, all required disclosure of interests. Nineteen (35.2%) manuals defined what constitutes a COI, and 52 (96.3%) specified who should disclose their interests. Thirty-four (63.0%) manuals recommended an assessment of disclosed interests to determine whether a COI existed, and all of these specified who should perform this review. Thirty-five (64.8%) manuals addressed the management of COI, of which 26 (74.3%) indicated who should manage COI and 29 (82.9%) reported specific management measures. Twenty-eight (51.8%) manuals addressed the publication of COI, all recommending that these be publicly accessible. Of the 28 manuals that provided guidance on funding, eight (28.6%) required reporting of funding sources; 14 (50.0%) required that the guideline authors state that the funders' perspectives and interests did not affect the final recommendations; eight (28.6%) specified which kind of funding the guidelines should not accept; and five (17.9%) recommended that the role of funders be restricted.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Policies in guideline manuals report a variety of different elements related to COI and funding. However, a considerable part of the policies did not report precisely what constitutes a COI, the key steps for COI management, or address the sources, influence and acceptability of funding.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143809830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Brief report of a pilot test of an audit tool for assurance of Declarations of Interest policy in NICE COVID-19 guidance production","authors":"Harriet Edmondson,&nbsp;Hannah Patrick,&nbsp;Sarah Boyce,&nbsp;Margaret McCartney,&nbsp;Anneka Patel,&nbsp;Maria Majeed,&nbsp;Susan Bewley,&nbsp;Kevin Harris","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70007","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Introduction&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) UK helps practitioners and commissioners to achieve high-quality, cost-effective patient care by publishing relevant evidence-based recommendations, including guidelines. These are developed by NICE advisory committees comprising health and care professionals, service users, and their carers. To ensure NICE's independence it has a comprehensive policy on declaring and managing interests for advisory committees. The application of the policy is not straightforward and the aim of this work was to pilot test an audit tool for external assurance of self-declared interests; and to produce methodology with wider applicability for other research and guideline-producing organisations.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;A pilot study of adherence to the NICE DOI policy was undertaken. The number and type of DOIs made by the 48 panel members developing the NG191 Managing COVID-19 guideline was assessed, using multiple external sources to check for undeclared interests. DOIs were reviewed from a 6-month period at the height of activity (1 March–31 August 2021). DOIs were checked by assessors (experienced NICE staff involved in application of the DOI policy) against a comprehensive search strategy including multiple public sources (PubMed, Google Scholar, Disclosure, etc.) of information for undisclosed DOIs over the 12 months preceding the member's contribution and the 12 months during which they contributed.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;There was a total of 126 unique self-declared interests during the 6-month time period and we found a further 280 undeclared interests. Of these 280, 75 were deemed likely to be relevant (27%) but only 10 (4%), would have led to a request for more information from the panel member had it been declared (according to DOI policy version 1.4 in place at that time). The team considered that 7 of the undeclared interests would have led to exclusion from decision-making had they been known (3% of the undeclared interests). All related to academic output.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Discussion&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;This pilot provided useful insight into NICE DOI policy compliance. The methodology needs further testing and development for wider, routine contexts. A digital version of the audit tool would enable routine, more efficient audit of declarations of interest. This study was an important quality assurance exercise from which we have been able to propose methodology that can be automated and widely adopted.&lt;/","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143809509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Clinical practice guideline protocol for perioperative glycemic control in diabetic and nondiabetic adults undergoing noncardiac surgery","authors":"Fabricio Andres Lasso Andrade,&nbsp;Nubia Fernanda Sanchez Bello,&nbsp;Jose Hugo Arias Botero,&nbsp;Jaddy Sandrey Bedoya,&nbsp;Luz Maria Gomez Buitrago,&nbsp;Alexandra Chaves Vega,&nbsp;Fernando Ríos Barbosa","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70019","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Type II diabetes mellitus (DM II) is a chronic and prevalent disease affecting millions of people worldwide, with a significant impact on public health. This protocol outlines the methodology for developing a Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) focused on managing glycemic control in diabetic and nondiabetic adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. The objective of this guideline is to provide recommendations based on the best available evidence, improving the quality of care and clinical outcomes for these patients.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The CPG will be developed using the GRADE methodology, a rigorous and transparent approach that allows for the evaluation of evidence quality and the formulation of robust recommendations. The process will include identifying critical clinical questions using the PECOT format, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of perioperative glycemic management.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Questions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The clinical questions addressed in this CPG cover key aspects of perioperative glycemic management, from defining preoperative hyperglycemia to strategies for intraoperative and postoperative monitoring. These questions were prioritized through a modified Delphi process, ensuring their clinical relevance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143778186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2","authors":"Manuel Marques-Cruz,&nbsp;Paula Perestrelo,&nbsp;Alexandro W. L. Chu,&nbsp;Sara Gil-Mata,&nbsp;Pau Riera-Serra,&nbsp;Bernardo Sousa-Pinto","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool – centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews – comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.65;0.87) and the number of fulfilled or partially fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.74;0.90) in AMSTAR 2. The percentage of fulfilled ReMarQ items displayed a high agreement with the percentage of fulfilled or partially fulfilled AMSTAR items. In conclusion, the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ is strongly correlated with that in AMSTAR 2 and there is good agreement between these two tools on the percentage of fulfilled items.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143726795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}