Clinical and Public Health Guidelines最新文献

{"title":"The development of the GIN-McMaster checklist extension for guideline adaptation protocol","authors":"Yang Song,&nbsp;Yuan Zhang,&nbsp;Yasser Amer,&nbsp;Andrea J. Darzi,&nbsp;Elie A. Akl,&nbsp;Pablo Alonso-Coello,&nbsp;Holger J. Schünemann","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70005","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To ensure rigour and transparency in guideline adaptation and contextualization processes, standardized tools and methodological principles are needed. However, methodological challenges have been continuously documented in guideline adaptation processes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To develop a guideline international network (GIN)-McMaster guidelines development checklist (GDC) extension for guideline adaptation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This project follows multiphase iterative approach, including (1) compiling a list of key methodological steps for guideline adaptation, based on scoping reviews of the current knowledge of guideline adaptation; (2) proposing methodological principles for guideline adaptation based on key methodological steps, in parallel to developing the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for adaptation (GDC-adaptation extension) concerning the original checklist and methodological steps for adaptation; (3) iteratively refining the methodological steps through GIN Adaptation working group discussions, and GDC-adaptation extension items through several rounds of Delphi consensus survey and (4) Public consultation and finalization. For methodological principles, this involves public consultation; for GDC-adaptation extension, we will conduct user testing through semi-structured interviews. Finally, we will submit the final outputs to the GIN board and seek final approval.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The identification of the key methodological principles, together with the GIN-McMaster GDC extension for guideline adaptation and contextualization, will provide clarity in the planning and execution of adaptation, adoption and/or development of recommendations. The aim of the checklist is to improve efficiency and reduce research waste in guideline development while maintaining rigour and transparency.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142860423","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":"SHOW ME the evidence: Features of an approach to reliably deliver research evidence to those who need it","authors":"John N. Lavis,&nbsp;Jeremy M. Grimshaw,&nbsp;Ruth Stewart,&nbsp;Julian Elliott,&nbsp;Will Moy,&nbsp;Joerg J. Meerpohl","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70006","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The world is poised for a step-change improvement in how we use evidence to address societal challenges.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Given the speed at which plans are being made to support this once-in-a-generation transformation, the Implementation Council of the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges developed a working version of the features of an approach to reliably getting research evidence to those who need it and achieved consensus among leaders from the Implementation Council, as well as the Alliance for Living Evidence (Alive) Council and Evidence Synthesis International (ESI).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 100+ contributing authors from across the ‘evidence synthesis and support’ world want to ensure that our future plans are firmly rooted in an agreed-upon summary of all that we have learned together over these past four or so years and to signal a mutual accountability among many of the key players involved in providing evidence support that we will each do our part in delivering on the promise that motivates these plans.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Given that much of the momentum for transformation is currently focused on living evidence syntheses and the infrastructure needed to support them, we give this form of evidence disproportionate focus here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Actions speak louder than words. If we are to deliver on the promise of a step-change improvement in how we use evidence to address societal challenges, then each of us needs to do our part to put in place the features of an approach to reliably getting research evidence to those who need it. Funding can enable it. Coordination can facilitate it. Reporting can celebrate it (and shame a go-it-alone ethos). Evaluation of our approaches can support continuous improvement. But only our actions can make it happen.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You may already be doing great work. Please keep it up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you want to embrace a new approach and don't know where you can best fit in, check out the Global Evidence Commission's work in formalizing and strengthening national (and subnational) evidence support systems, enhancing and leveraging the global evidence architecture and putting evidence at the centre of everyday life. Or approach one of the Implementation Council members who you see doing exemplary work in your part of the world, in your type of role, in your sector, with your form of evidence or with an innovation like AI-powered living evidence synthesis or storytelling that draws on both research evidence and Indigenous ways of knowing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;John N. Lavis and Jeremy M. Grimshaw are co-leads of the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges. All authors are members of its Implementation Council. John N. Lavis is council chair, Ruth Stewart is director, Julian Elliott is treasurer and founder of the host entity and Will Moy is council member at the Alliance for Living Evidence (Alive). Jeremy M. Grimshaw is cochair and Ruth Stewart and Will Moy are members of the executive committee of Evidence Synthesis International. ","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142737628","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":"Saudi Arabian evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the management of children with autism spectrum disorder: A national guideline adaptation using the KSU-modified-ADAPTE methodology","authors":"Shuliweeh Alenezi,&nbsp;Fahad Bashiri,&nbsp;Amel Alawami,&nbsp;Ayman Alhazmi,&nbsp;Somayyah Aladamawai,&nbsp;Faisal Alnemary,&nbsp;Yasser Alqahtani,&nbsp;Maysaa Buraik,&nbsp;Saleh AlSuwailem,&nbsp;Shahad Akhalifah,&nbsp;Saleh Al-Salehi,&nbsp;Yasser Amer","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70001","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is one of the national mental health priorities that has manifested a wide variability in practice in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This work aimed to adapt evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for ASD to synthesize the first national CPG for the management of children with ASD in KSA.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The CPG adaptation group comprised multidisciplinary expert clinicians and a CPG methodologist following the KSU‑Modified‑ADAPTE methodology. The last search date for source evidence-based guidelines was March 2022.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Recommendations</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Three main categories of recommendations were included: (i) prevention and early identification, coding, psychometric tools, telehealth, risk factors and referral criteria, (ii) diagnosis, differential diagnosis, investigations and family support, (iii) interventions with problem minimization and avoidance, treatment goals, physical wellbeing, nonpharmacological interventions, sensory integration, parent-mediated interventions, cognitive behavioural therapy, pharmacological interventions, psycho-education of the family, special cases or comorbidities, sleep management, gastrointestinal and feeding interventions, the transition of care from paediatrics to adulthood. CPG implementation tools included a baseline assessment tool, clinical scenarios, pathways, quality measures, referral forms, screening tools and useful online resources. The adapted CPG presents practical, evidence‑based guidance with implementation tools for managing children with ASD in KSA. The project illustrated the applicability of the KSU‑modified‑ADAPTE and highlighted the importance of collaboration between clinicians and methodologists for adapting national CPGs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142707805","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":"Analysis of European Association of Urology Guidelines 2023 and its adherence to GRADE methodology","authors":"Philipp Dahm,&nbsp;Mathew Holten,&nbsp;John P. Ratanawong,&nbsp;Andrew Lauwagie,&nbsp;Daniel A. Gonzalez-Padilla","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The European Association of Urology (EAU) has reported the use of a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for developing guideline recommendations since 2018; however, the full adoption of GRADE remains a work in progress.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Two members of the research team identified and independently abstracted all individual recommendations and summary of evidence statements available from all EAU guidelines published in 2023. We evaluated the current adherence to established criteria for appropriate GRADE use, the proportion of strong and weak recommendations, the underlying strength of evidence, and criteria for appropriate use of GRADE.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included a total of 20 guideline documents with a total number of 1985 recommendations. The median number of strong recommendations was 46 (interquartile range: 32–87), representing 62.6% of all recommendations. The surgical thromboprophylaxis guideline had the lowest percentage of strong recommendations (18.2%; 30/165), and the neuro-urology guideline had the highest percentage (95.5%; 42/44). EAU guidelines provided 2580 summaries of evidence statements, of which 1608 reported a level of evidence. The reported levels of evidence were I, II, III and IV/V at 31.8%, 28.5%, 32.4% and 7.3%, respectively. Of the six criteria for the appropriate use of GRADE, criterion 6, which reports the framing of recommendations as strong or weak, was met consistently; all other criteria were met only by a single guideline on thromboprophylaxis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The EAU guidelines adoption of GRADE has been largely limited to the framing of recommendations as strong or weak. In all but one guideline, published guidelines did not meet any of the other criteria for appropriate GRADE use. Increased efforts to fully adopt GRADE, similar to its implementation in the thromboprophylaxis guideline in future editions, may enhance trust and uptake of EAU guidelines, thereby assisting policymakers and improving patient care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142435269","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":"MATCH-IT: A decision support tool for multiple comparisons presenting data from network meta-analysis to facilitate guideline development","authors":"Birk S. Hunskaar,&nbsp;Per O. Løvsletten,&nbsp;Frankie Achille,&nbsp;Anja F. Heen,&nbsp;Thomas Agoritsas,&nbsp;Per O. Vandvik","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70003","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides unprecedented opportunities to compare multiple treatment options (multiple comparisons) and are increasingly being used to inform clinical practice guidelines. However, the overwhelming amount of data generated from NMAs is challenging to present in comprehensible overviews for end-users, guideline panelists included. Acknowledging these challenges, we developed MATCH-IT—an interactive evidence summary displaying NMA results for multiple comparisons. In this study, we conducted user-testing and further developed MATCH-IT to support guideline panels in moving from NMA evidence to recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We user-tested the tool with guideline panelists and observed the use of the tool in panel meetings. User-testing sessions and guideline meetings were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The analysis informed the iterative development in the tool.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included four guideline panels and tested the tool with 15 panelists (four chairs, four methodologists, five clinical experts and two patient partners). User testing revealed both positive aspects and limitations of the tool. Interactivity allowed for dynamic display of the evidence during panels meetings and was highlighted as valuable. Further, participants felt that the tool provided overview of complex evidence, further facilitated by categorization of effects through colour coding. The inclusion of information on burden of treatment was highlighted as relevant and valuable. Regarding limitations, some users had issues discovering the interactive features. Earlier versions of MATCH-IT did not include sufficiently detailed information, such as the imprecision of effect estimates, which the users felt was needed for decision making. These findings led to refinements of the tool, including a new tutorial, inclusion of confidence intervals, and a new layer displaying more detailed information.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our study suggests that MATCH-IT may play a role in facilitating guideline development by easing understanding of NMA evidence and alleviating information overload in guideline panelists.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142245063","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":"Developing the Society of Obstetric Medicine Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) Hypertension in Pregnancy Guideline 2023: Guideline development approaches, challenges and contextual considerations","authors":"Renuka Shanmugalingam,&nbsp;Zachary Munn,&nbsp;Timothy H. Barker,&nbsp;Helen L. Barrett,&nbsp;Amanda Beech,&nbsp;Lucy Bowyer,&nbsp;Tim Crozier,&nbsp;Amanda Davidson,&nbsp;Marloes Dekker Nitert,&nbsp;Aunty Kerrie Doyle,&nbsp;Luke Grzeskowiak,&nbsp;Nicole Hall,&nbsp;Hicham Cheikh Hassan,&nbsp;Annemarie Hennessy,&nbsp;Amanda Henry,&nbsp;David Langsford,&nbsp;Vincent W. Lee,&nbsp;Michael Peek,&nbsp;Joanne M. Said,&nbsp;Helen Tanner,&nbsp;Rachel Taylor,&nbsp;Meredith Ward,&nbsp;Jason Waugh,&nbsp;Linda Yen,&nbsp;Ellie Medcalf,&nbsp;Katy Bell,&nbsp;Deonna Ackermann,&nbsp;Robin Turner,&nbsp;Angela Makris","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70000","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Society of Obstetric Medicine Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) Hypertension in Pregnancy Guideline 2023 is the first evidence-based guideline for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy that has been developed to the standards of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). This article describes the methodology, challenges and considerations in developing the guideline and includes details on group composition, literature search, evidence synthesis and development of recommendations. We also discuss several practical considerations and challenges related to contextual issues, topics of interest and resources available for guideline developers working with similar jurisdictions or topics.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234852","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":"Consumer engagement in living evidence “a beautiful opportunity”: International qualitative study with patients and methodologists","authors":"Anneliese Synnot,&nbsp;Laura Weeks,&nbsp;Sophie J. Hill,&nbsp;Lyubov Lytvyn,&nbsp;Tamara Radar,&nbsp;Rebecca Randall,&nbsp;Richard Morley,&nbsp;Allison Jaure,&nbsp;Julian H. Elliott,&nbsp;Tari Turner","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70002","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aimed to explore the opportunities, challenges and practical strategies for consumer engagement (i.e., patient and public involvement) in living evidence (systematic reviews, guidelines and health technology assessments that are continually updated with the latest evidence).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study Design and Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this international qualitative study, methodologists (producers of systematic reviewers, guidelines and health technology assessments) with an interest in living evidence, and consumers (patients, informal carers, the public and their representatives) with experience contributing to evidence synthesis production participated in either a face-to-face workshop, online focus group or semistructured interview. We analysed data using descriptive synthesis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Forty-one methodologists and seven consumers from nine countries participated. A minority of participants in both groups had direct experience with living evidence synthesis. We identified seven themes: harnessing consumer enthusiasm in recruitment; ‘better’ consumer engagement based on deeper relationships; improved and ongoing orientation, support and remuneration; maintaining an ongoing commitment; potentially different guideline development stages and tasks; larger groups of consumers and multiple roles; and ongoing incorporation of consumer insights.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Methodologists and consumers believe living evidence approaches present an imperative and an opportunity to explore new models of consumer engagement, bringing together larger and more diverse communities of consumers in true partnerships with methodologists. Consumer engagement strategies for living evidence allow ongoing improvement to engagement methods and ongoing incorporation of consumer experiences, preferences and values as they develop and change over time.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142230987","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":"Lifespan of COVID-19 living guideline recommendations: A survival analysis","authors":"Emma McFarlane,&nbsp;Toby Mercer,&nbsp;Steve Sharp,&nbsp;Debra Hunter,&nbsp;Kate Kelley,&nbsp;Fiona Glen,&nbsp;Maria Majeed","doi":"10.1002/gin2.12012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.12012","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>NICE has maintained a portfolio of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) living guidelines since March 2020. Recommendations within these living guidelines are subject to continuous surveillance and updates in response to triggers. However, the lifespan of individual living guideline recommendations and features that may impact whether a recommendation becomes out of date sooner is unknown.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study describes the length of time NICE COVID-19 living guideline recommendations have remained valid.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All guidelines within NICE's COVID-19 portfolio were included to determine the lifespan of living guideline recommendations. Data were collected on all recommendations that had been developed, undergone surveillance or updated between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2022. The initial publication date, decision to update and updated publication date were extracted. Updates were labelled as major changes in evidence synthesis or minor changes without a substantial change in the evidence base. Any recommendation that had not been updated or withdrawn was censored. Survival analysis (Kaplan–Meier curve) was carried out to determine the lifespan of recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Overall, 26 COVID-19 living guidelines and 1182 recommendations were included in the analysis. Living recommendations had a median survival time of 739 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 332, 781). Based on recommendation type, intervention recommendations had a shorter survival time (354 days, IQR: 312, 775) compared to diagnosis (368 days, IQR: 328, 795), patient experience (733 days, IQR: 345, 795) and service delivery (739 days, IQR: 643, 781). Within intervention type, pharmacological recommendations had the shortest survival time versus nonpharmacological recommendations (335 days, IQR: 161, 775 vs. 775 days, IQR: 354, 775). Updates were published an average of 29.12 days following a surveillance decision.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Within living guidelines, some recommendations need to be updated sooner than others. This study outlines the value of a flexible responsive approach to surveillance according to the pace of change and expectation of update triggers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.12012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142100372","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":"Editorial: The relevance of core outcome sets to clinical guideline development","authors":"Sarah Rhodes,&nbsp;Paula Williamson,&nbsp;Ivan D. Florez","doi":"10.1002/gin2.12026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.12026","url":null,"abstract":"<p>A core outcome set (COS) is ‘an agreed standard set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum in trials for a specific health condition’,<span>¹</span> developed via consensus with stakeholders. Although the focus on COS originated on randomised trials, their use in systematic reviews, routine care, audit and, importantly, in clinical guidelines, is being increasingly recognised. The core outcome measures in effectiveness trials (COMET) initiative is an organisation for anyone interested in the development and application of COS and they host a database of studies relating to COS (https://comet-initiative.org/Resources/Database).</p><p>There are at least three main reasons why we would advocate the use of a relevant COS when developing a clinical guideline. First, there is the desire to have a research ecosystem where this minimum set of outcomes considered and reported in trials, combined in systematic reviews and used for clinical decision-making and monitoring patient progress are the same. Consistency will reduce bias and increase efficiency, and COS are a means to facilitating this. Second, it reduces duplication of effort. COS developers go through a rigorous, transparent process and involve all relevant parties including patients and members of the public in determining the outcomes of critical importance;<span>^{1, 2}</span> guideline authors commonly repeat an almost identical procedure. Third, using COS in guidelines would encourage researchers to consider using them when designing trials.</p><p>The International Guideline Development Credentialing and Certification Programme (https://inguide.org/) mentions COS and some guideline organisations, including National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (https://www.nice.org.uk/), recommend the use of COS in their manual. However, to date, very little is known about the consideration and use of COS by guideline authors. We conducted a piece of research to examine whether or not COS were being referenced in guidelines and the extent to which the guideline outcomes selected agreed with outcomes listed in a relevant COS.<span>³</span> We focussed on 10 disease areas with a published high-quality COS and 38 guidelines with matching scope. What we found is that none of those guidelines explicitly mentioned or referenced the COS, and the agreement between the guideline outcomes and COS outcomes was variable. Although limited in terms of disease groups and geographical coverage, this exercise tells us that guideline authors are not yet routinely considering COS when choosing outcomes for their PICO statements (PICO is a framework to construct clinical questions and stands for Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome).</p><p>These findings were presented at the 2023 GIN conference in Glasgow and the response from the guideline community was very encouraging. We ran a workshop introducing the COMET database and d","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.12026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013627","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":"Modifications to the NEATS instrument for more appropriate and reproducible assessment of guidelines trustworthiness","authors":"Maryam Ghadimi,&nbsp;Gordon Guyatt,&nbsp;Romina Brignardello-Petersen","doi":"10.1002/gin2.12025","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gin2.12025","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Rational</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument measures the adherence of clinical practice guidelines to the trustworthiness standards proposed by the Institute of Medicine. However, rather than trustworthiness or methodological quality, the NEATS instrument evaluates the quality of reporting in addressing the management of conflict of interest of guideline development group members, systematic review process and assessment of the certainty of the evidence, rating the strength of recommendations, and updating plans. Furthermore, the NEATS instrument instructions on rating items are sufficiently limited that they may compromise the reproducibility of the instrument.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods (Modifications to the NEATS Instrument)</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In the context of a specific methodological research project, we developed modifications to the NEATS instrument that include modifying the wording of items to capture trustworthiness rather than reporting quality and creating an algorithm for all items that maps responses to a series of prompting questions and guides the user in arriving at a rating from 1 to 5 or yes, no, or unknown, as applicable.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Implications</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Modifications to the NEATS instrument present a structured and practical framework to assess the degree to which clinical practice guidelines are trustworthy, and they ensure that items evaluate trustworthiness and improve the reproducibility of assessments across a range of raters' level of expertise in guideline methodology.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.12025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141848673","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}