Clinical and Public Health Guidelines最新文献

{"title":"Contextualizing guidelines for the health system of Cyprus: Experiences and lessons learnt","authors":"Panayiotis Kouis,&nbsp;Hugh McGuire,&nbsp;Monika Kyriacou,&nbsp;Anneza Yiallourou,&nbsp;Anastasis Sioftanos,&nbsp;Ourania Kolokotroni,&nbsp;Haris Achilleos,&nbsp;Craig Grime,&nbsp;Pilar Pinilla-Dominguez,&nbsp;Giorgos Giallouros,&nbsp;Christina Englezou,&nbsp;Contextualization group,&nbsp;Panayiotis K. Yiallouros,&nbsp;Georgios K. Nikolopoulos","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70013","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cyprus is undergoing a major health reform with the recent establishment of the General Healthcare System (GHS). The GHS offers equal healthcare access through one primary insurer (Health Insurance Organization [HIO]) and benefits from a wide collaborative network of public and private healthcare providers. However, unwanted variation in practice makes this transition challenging. Healthcare guidelines could decrease these variations in practice, but Cyprus lacks the capacity to develop them de novo. Through a collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, the contextualization of NICE guidelines and the derivation of local quality indicators are carried out. This study presents the methodology and experience of contextualizing the first three NICE guidelines and deriving associated quality indicators in Cyprus.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>HIO managed the guideline contextualization with the support of a Guidelines Secretariat. For each guideline, a local topic expert committee (TEC) was recruited. Through a series of meetings, followed by public consultation, each TEC made contextual changes to the guideline and derived relevant quality indicators. During this process, NICE assured quality by overseeing several elements of the contextualization procedure such as TEC membership, proposed changes and justification and derived quality indicators.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Between 2022 and 2024, three NICE guidelines, NG196 on Atrial fibrillation (AF), NG230 on Thyroid cancer (TC) and NG203 on Chronic kidney disease (CKD), were contextualized through the modification of several individual guideline recommendations (21/79 [26.6%] in AF, 37/67 [55.2%] in TC and 62/217 [28.6%] in CKD). In parallel, NICE quality indicators were screened for applicability and feasibility in Cyprus while additional indicators were developed if required.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In a country with limited experience in guideline development, a supervised and systematic process supported by an established organization ensures quality, is less resource intensive and builds capability for the sustainability of the process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143248769","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":"Up-to-dateness of German patient versions of clinical practice guidelines and potential influencing factors: A mixed-methods study","authors":"Irma Hellbrecht,&nbsp;Nadja Könsgen,&nbsp;Dawid Pieper,&nbsp;Barbara Prediger,&nbsp;Jessica Breuing","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide recommendations and are a fundamental part of clinical practice. Many guideline organisations also produce patient versions of CPGs (PVGs). To explore the up-to-dateness of German PVGs, potential methodological influence factors and experts' perspectives, we applied a convergent mixed-methods design.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>First, a literature search to identify PVGs was performed between October 2022 and January 2023. We searched the websites of German guideline organisations, Google and the reference lists of included PVGs. We screened the title, downloaded the documents if relevant and retrieved the underlying CPGs and methods reports of CPGs. We aggregated the literature search dates of CPGs and calculated the time between the CPG literature search and PVG publication. Second, interviews with experts in the PVG development were conducted and analysed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring) with MAXQDA.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>49 PVGs were included and analysed. A median of 36 months elapsed between the literature search of CPGs and the publication of PVGs. A median of 25 months passed between the literature search and publication of CPGs, and a median of 7.5 months elapsed between the CPG and PVG publication. Six interviews were conducted and interviewees mostly perceived PVGs as up-to-date. However, they identified exceptions in the up-to-dateness depending on the topic or thematic chapters of PVGs. Interviewees mentioned different influencing factors such as the scientific progress and the editorial process of PVGs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings underline potential issues with the up-to-dateness of PVGs. In the context of a fast-moving evidence basis, it seems doubtful whether PVGs actually reflect the current state of knowledge, especially in fields with high research activity. However, some factors may not be modifiable because they essentially contribute to the quality assurance of PVGs. Further research is desirable to investigate possible measures to improve the up-to-dateness of PVGs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143111416","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":"Patient involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines in Germany—A meta-research study","authors":"Stefanie Pfisterer-Heise,&nbsp;Clara Orduhan,&nbsp;Käthe Goossen,&nbsp;Jessica Breuing,&nbsp;Irma Hellbrecht,&nbsp;Sebastian von Peter,&nbsp;Corinna Schaefer,&nbsp;Dawid Pieper","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Patient involvement (PI) is a key element of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, PI in CPGs often falls short of quality standards. For evidence- and consensus-based CPGs in Germany, a study in 2018 showed that a mere 58% had included a patient (participation), 56% with voting right. We aimed to provide an update on whether and how patients were involved in CPGs (participation and consultation), on the availability of patient versions (PVGs) (communication) and to investigate whether CPGs in Germany adhere to the RIGHT checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An electronic search on the Register of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies was performed. Eligibility criteria were defined a priori. We included evidence- and consensus-based CPGs valid on 31 March 2023. A data extraction form including 35 items was designed and piloted. Five researchers independently extracted data from CPGs, methodology reports and PVGs. Data were analysed descriptively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The search identified 135 CPGs meeting the eligibility criteria. Participation has increased to 79% (107/135 CPGs), in 73% of CPGs (98/135) with voting right. Participation was more common in CPGs for chronic than acute conditions (76/86 CPGs, 88% chronic vs. 23/38 CPGs, 61% acute). Consultation was scarcely employed (3/135 CPGs, 2%). Communication, operationalised as PVGs being available on the internet, increased from 33% (35/105) in 2018 to 43% (58/135) in 2023. 26% of CPGs (28/107) with participation reported on patients' selection as required by the RIGHT checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>PI has improved, although around 20% of CPGs were still developed without participation. This applies in particular to CPGs on acute conditions where PI should be strengthened. At the same time, innovative and efficient methods for consultation and for evaluating patients' impact are required. Moreover, communication should be expanded. To further improve transparency in CPGs, guideline development groups should specifically report on patients' recruitment and selection.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143120200","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: Why guideline development must prioritize fairness and justice","authors":"Omar Dewidar,&nbsp;Jordi Pardo Pardo,&nbsp;Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas,&nbsp;Rebecca Thomas,&nbsp;Vivian Welch,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70015","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Health equity should be regarded as a fundamental principle and a priority for all guideline development organizations. Yet, this principle has not been consistently prioritized in the creation of mainstream guidelines. In this commentary, we examine a real-world example from leprosy management, where the initial lack of integration of health equity considerations in the guideline recommendations did not consider the potential impact of the recommendations on the health of populations most affected by leprosy. We also highlight subsequent changes in the guideline development process that reflect stronger consideration of health equity, addressing some of the previous issues propagated with historical practices. We also draw on other examples from several fields to further illustrate the impact of integrating health equity considerations in guidelines. Building on evaluations of guidelines for health equity and real-world experiences, we highlight some of the common challenges in integrating health equity considerations in the guideline development process. We propose potential solutions using existing tools and frameworks and outlining key research priorities to further advance this goal.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143120199","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":"The paradox of implementation: Tools without impact - reflections from the global evidence summit","authors":"Laura Mora Moreo","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70010","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The Global Evidence Summit (GES2024), held in Prague from September 9 to 13, 2024, united scholars, healthcare professionals, and policymakers to tackle global health challenges. Among the diverse topics presented, implementation science stood out, emphasising collaboration to bridge evidence and practice gaps while fostering discussions on improving health systems and outcomes. Notably, many talks and posters focused on implementing clinical guideline recommendations—a critical and growing area of interest. However, a paradox remains: &lt;i&gt;whilst the development of implementation tools is on the rise, their actual influence on clinical outcomes remains largely unquantified&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The GES2024 presented numerous presentations on digital technologies, decision-support systems, and other advanced tools for disseminating and implementing clinical guidelines. For example, one exhibit showcased a mobile app designed to integrate palliative care guidelines into daily practice through a web-based platform for healthcare professionals. Despite their popularity and high levels of user engagement, evidence of these innovations' effectiveness in improving patient outcomes was limited. Many implementation tools gauge success through superficial metrics like downloads or user engagement, which primarily reflect conceptual use,&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; while these metrics indicate awareness or understanding, they rarely lead to the behavioural or process changes characteristic of instrumental use. For meaningful and sustained impact, such efforts must progress beyond these surrogate outcomes to measurable clinical outcomes that directly improve patient care or system efficiency, aligning with the goals of knowledge translation and implementation science. For example, the palliative care platform received over 100,000 visits in its first 6 months, but data on patient impact were lacking. Measuring app downloads is different from evaluating their effect on patient outcomes. While high engagement numbers suggest interest, they do not indicate whether the guidelines improved patient care or symptom management.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This raises a critical question: &lt;b&gt;Are implementers failing to recognise the importance of measuring the true impact of these tools, or are clinical guidelines recommendations inherently difficult to assess in real-world practice?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The literature emphasises that focusing only on engagement without assessing clinical outcomes undermines the main goal of guidelines—improving patient care. There is still a significant lack of information about the effective implementation of these recommendations. Despite existing frameworks, there is a shortage of evidence about real-world application and effectiveness. Research shows a persistent gap between creating guidelines and putting them into practice, often worsened by inconsistent adaptation across different contexts. This underscores the need for strong research methods to determine whether guide","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143119510","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":"Using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT framework in developing the Philippine national screening guideline recommendations","authors":"Ian Theodore G. Cabaluna,&nbsp;Maria Vanessa C. Villarruz-Sulit,&nbsp;Katelyn Edelwina Y. Legaspi,&nbsp;Leonila F. Dans","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70008","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Preventive health screening is an important strategy in improving health outcomes of the general population and sustaining universal healthcare initiatives. Due to the large resource requirement, we used the GRADE ADOLOPMENT framework to synthesize the evidence and develop recommendations for preventive health screening.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our objectives were to describe the development and feasibility of a national preventive screening practice guideline using the GRADE-adolopment process and to discuss the methodological process, contextual differences from the source guidelines, and the resulting changes to the final recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A multidisciplinary team was convened. We used the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT and Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) framework in synthesizing the evidence and developing the recommendations. Evidence from the World Health Organization, United States Preventive Services Task Force, and Canadian Task Force on Preventive Healthcare were used. Values and preferences of the guideline developers were incorporated through the EtD framework.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Result</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In 6 months, we developed 16 evidence summaries and developed 23 recommendations for 16 prioritized conditions. Thirteen recommendations were adopted. Four recommendations were modified to address contextual differences. Six recommendations were developed de novo due to either lack of evidence or differences in values and preferences.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The GRADE-adolopment framework was a feasible and efficient framework in adopting guidelines on preventive screening. The EtD framework improved the transparency and highlighted areas to consider in making recommendations for the Philippine context. Challenges encountered were insufficiency of local evidence, and the lack of experience and skills in interpreting and analyzing the evidence especially on screening strategies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142861394","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":"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}