Consistency of Recommendations for Evaluation and Management of Hypertension

Discrepancies in breast cancer guideline recommendations despite similar Cochrane systematic review conclusions

AIM

This study aims to describe the citation patterns of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR) in guidelines for managing breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews on breast cancer in The Cochrane Library from the date of inception to November 15, 2023, and identified guidelines that cited them. We described how systematic reviews were cited by the guidelines in each database and each year. Additionally, we presented the relationships between the conclusions of the systematic reviews and guideline recommendations and compared the consistency of the recommendations on the same topic across different guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 64 systematic reviews and 228 guidelines were included in this study. The average number of the 64 systematic reviews cited by the guidelines was 5.91. We found that the guideline recommendations were irrelevant or inconsistent with the conclusions of the systematic reviews in 56 (38.36%) cited entries. We grouped recommendations on the same topic across different guidelines into one group, of which only 5 groups (15.15%) had completely consistent recommendations, and the other 28 groups (84.85%) had inconsistent recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The average number of citations for CSR on breast cancer in the guidelines was 5.91. There were also situations in which the guideline recommendations were inconsistent with the conclusions of the included systematic reviews, and recommendations on the same topic across different guidelines were inconsistent.

Quality appraisal and descriptive analysis of clinical practice guidelines for self-managed non-pharmacological interventions of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death around the world. Most CVDs-related death can be prevented by the optimal management of risk factors such as unhealthy diet and physical inactivity. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for CVDs, provide some evidence-based recommendations which help healthcare professionals to achieve the best care for patients with CVDs. This systematic review aims to appraise the methodological quality of CPGs systematically and summarize the recommendations of self-managed non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention and management of CVDs provided by the selected guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted via six databases (PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science), seven professional heart association websites, and nine guideline repositories. The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was adopted to critically appraise the methodological quality of the selected guidelines. Content analysis was used to summarise recommended self-managed non-pharmacological interventions for CVDs.

RESULTS

Twenty-three CPGs regarding different CVDs were included, in which four guidelines of CVDs, three for coronary heart diseases, seven for heart failure, two for atrial fibrillation, three for stroke, three for peripheral arterial disease, and one for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Twenty CPGs were appraised as high quality, and three CPGs as moderate quality. All twenty-three CPGs were recommended for use with or without modification. The domain of "Editorial Independence" had the highest standardized percentage (93.47%), whereas the domain of "Applicability" had the lowest mean domain score of 75.41%. The content analysis findings summarised some common self-managed non-pharmacological interventions, which include healthy diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, alcohol control, and weight management. Healthy diet and physical acidity are the most common and agreed on self-managed interventions for patients with CVDs. There are some inconsistencies identified in the details of recommended interventions, the intervention itself, the grade of recommendation, and the supported level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the summarized non-pharmacological interventions were strongly recommended with moderate to high-quality levels of evidence. Healthcare professionals and researchers can adopt the results of this review to design self-managed non-pharmacological interventions for patients with CVDs.

Algorithms in medical decision-making and in everyday life: what's the difference?

Algorithms are a ubiquitous part of modern life. Despite being a component of medicine since early efforts to deploy computers in medicine, clinicians' resistance to using decision support and use algorithms to address cognitive biases has been limited. This resistance is not just limited to the use of algorithmic clinical decision support, but also evidence and stochastic reasoning and the implications of the forcing function of the electronic medical record. Physician resistance to algorithmic support in clinical decision making is in stark contrast to their general acceptance of algorithmic support in other aspects of life.

Guideline panel social dynamics influence the development of clinical practice recommendations: a mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize empirical studies that investigate the cognitive and social processes involved in the deliberation process of guideline development meetings and determine the distribution of deliberated topics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a mixed-method systematic review using a convergent segregated approach. We searched for empirical studies that investigate the intragroup dynamics of guideline development meetings indexed in bibliographic databases.

RESULTS

Of the 5,899 citations screened, 12 studies from six countries proved eligible. Chairs, cochairs, and methodologists contributed to at least one-third of the discussion time in guideline development meetings; patient partners contributed the least. In interdisciplinary groups, male gender and occupation as a physician were positively associated with the amount of contribution. Compared to groups that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, for groups that did not, when faced with insufficient or low-quality evidence, relied more on their clinical experience. The presence of a cognitive "yes" bias was apparent in meetings: panelists tended to acquiesce with positive statements that required less cognitive effort than negative statements.

CONCLUSION

The social dynamics of the discussions were linked to each panelist's activity role, professional background, and gender, all of which influenced the level of contributions they made in guideline development meetings.

Exploring the concordance of recommendations across guidelines on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19: A proposed methodological approach based on a case study

OBJECTIVE

To describe a methodological approach to explore the concordance of recommendations across guidelines and its application to the case of the WHO recommendations on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We followed a methodological approach applied to a case study that included: defining the 'reference guideline' (i.e., the WHO guidance) and the 'reference recommendations'; searching for 'related guidelines' and identifying 'related recommendations'; constructing the PICO for the recommendations; assessing the matching of the PICO of each related recommendation to the PICO corresponding reference recommendation; and assessing the concordance between the PICO-matching recommendations.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 89 related recommendations from 22 related guidelines. Out of the 89 related recommendations, 43 partly matched and 1 entirely matched one of the reference recommendations, and out of these, 8 were concordant with one of the reference recommendations. When considering the seven reference recommendations, they had a median of 12 related recommendations (range 3-17), a median of 7 PICO-matching recommendations (range 0-13), and a median of 1 concordant recommendation (range 0-4).

CONCLUSION

Following a detailed methodological approach, we were able to explore the concordance between our reference recommendations and related recommendations from other guidelines. A relatively low percentage of recommendations was concordant.

Consistency of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines in periodontology: a systematic review

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the methodological quality and the consistency of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Periodontology. An electronic search was conducted in two databases, MEDLINE and EMBASE, eight CPGs databases, and home pages of scientific societies in Periodontology up to April 2022. Three reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument. In addition, we evaluated the consistency of the recommendations. Eleven CPGs were included, and the topics developed focused on prevention, diagnosis, risk factors, surgical and non-surgical periodontal treatment, antimicrobial therapy, root coverage, and maintenance. We found that the AGREE domains 2 (Stakeholder involvement) and 5 (Applicability) obtained the lowest scores. Domains 1 (Scope and purpose), 3 (Rigor of development) and 4 (Clarity of presentation) obtained the highest scores among the evaluated CPGs. The clinical recommendations for treatment of periodontal diseases were mostly consistent. Overall, the quality of CPGs used in periodontics was high. There was consistency of recommendations in specific fields. These findings may help researchers to promote CPGs focused on different fields of periodontics that have not yet been developed. Furthermore, the clinician will be able to make better clinical decisions.

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 1-definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Primary cam morphology is a mostly benign bony prominence that develops at the femoral head-neck junction of the hip, but it is highly prevalent in many athlete populations. In the small proportion of athletes for whom it is not benign, the resulting hip osteoarthritis can be debilitating. Clinicians, athletes, patients and researchers do not yet agree on important primary cam morphology elements. We aimed to ascertain and improve the level of agreement on primary cam morphology definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome measures.

METHODS

To collect and aggregate informed opinions, an expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research Collaborative-rated primary cam morphology definition, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome statements through an online Delphi exercise followed by an online meeting to explore areas of tension and dissent. Reporting followed Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies.

RESULTS

A diverse and inclusive Delphi panel (n=65 for rounds 1 and 2, representing 18 countries; 6 stakeholder groups; 40% women) agreed on 35 of 47 statements in 4 domains, while surfacing areas of tension and dissent. This Delphi panel agreed on four key issues essential to moving research and clinical care forward around primary cam morphology. They agreed on: (1) definition, confirming its conceptual attributes (tissue type, size, location, shape and ownership); (2) terminology-use 'morphology' and not terms with a negative connotation like 'lesion', 'abnormality' or 'deformity'; (3) taxonomy, distinguishing between primary and secondary cam morphology, and (4) imaging outcomes, a continuous bone/cartilage alpha angle on radial femoral head-neck MRI for primary cam morphology aetiology research.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides athletes, patients, clinicians and researchers with a strong foundation to guide more precise communication, better clinical decision-making and higher value research about primary cam morphology and its natural history.

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 2-research priorities on conditions affecting the young person's hip

INTRODUCTION

Primary cam morphology is highly prevalent in many athlete populations, causing debilitating hip osteoarthritis in some. Existing research is mired in confusion partly because stakeholders have not agreed on key primary cam morphology elements or a prioritised research agenda. We aimed to inform a more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based approach to research on primary cam morphology and its natural history by working towards agreement on a set of research priorities for conditions affecting the young person's hip.

METHODS

An international expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research (YAHiR) Collaborative-rated research priority statements through an online two-round Delphi exercise and met online to explore areas of tension and dissent. Panellists ranked the prioritised research statements according to the Essential National Health Research (ENHR) ranking strategy. Reporting of results followed REPRISE (REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health).

RESULTS

A diverse Delphi panel (n=65, Delphi rounds 1 and 2; three ENHR strategy surveys: n=49; n=44; n=42) from 18 countries representing six stakeholder groups, prioritised and ranked 18 of 38 research priority statements. The prioritised statements outlined seven research domains: (1) best practice physiotherapy, (2) rehabilitation progression and return to sport, (3) exercise intervention and load management, (4) primary cam morphology prognosis and aetiology, (5) femoroacetabular impingement syndrome prognosis and aetiology, (6) diagnostic criteria, and (7) screening. The panel recommended areas of tension and dissent for the research community to focus on immediately.

CONCLUSION

While informing more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based research, this consensus is a roadmap for researchers, policy-makers and funders to implement research dedicated to reducing the cost and burden of hip disease related to primary cam morphology.

Nutrition management for patients with head and neck cancer during peri-radiotherapy: A systematic review and quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument

Objective

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for nutrition management of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) during peri-radiotherapy, as well as to summarize the nutrition recommendations fitting the subject.

Methods

CPGs published in English, Chinese and German were identified from databases, guideline networks, and websites of nutritional associations from the databases’ inception to March 8, 2022. Three independent appraisers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument to assess the quality of CPGs. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to calculate appraiser agreement.

Results

769 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 470 articles were screened. 12 CPGs were identified with nutrition-specific recommendations. 67% of CPGs were rated as high quality, and 33% as low quality. Recommendations were categorized into nutritional risk screening, nutrition assessment, nutrition counseling, nutrition interventions, nutrition intake, swallowing function management, weight management, exercise, multidisciplinary team, post-discharge care, nutrients, and pharmacologic interventions.

Conclusion

We found discrepant recommendations in existing CPGs, including nutrition screening, nutrition assessment, nutrition intake, and nutrients. We also reported the absence of essential parts of CPGs, including the views of its target users, the statement of external review, the method to formulate the recommendations, strategies to improve uptake, and resource implications of applying the CPGs. CPGs with low quality should be improved in future updates based on currently available guideline development tools. Specialized CPGs on nutrition management for HNC patients during peri-radiotherapy should be developed.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php, identifier CRD42022320322.

Consistency of recommendations for pharmacotherapy of rheumatoid arthritis

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory arthropathy. Recommendations for RA, specifically on pharmacotherapy, are essential in clinical practice. However, the direction and strength of recommendations are controversial across current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of RA.

Objective: To systematically analyze the consistency of recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy of RA across CPGs.

Methods: 11 electronic databases and websites were comprehensively searched from inception to 14 March 2022, to identify CPGs for diagnosis, therapy, and management of RA. Unambiguous and discrete specifications of the population-intervention-comparison (PIC) framework were used to classify the recommendations. Based on the PIC framework, consistency analyses across CPGs on pharmacotherapy of RA were performed. Two researchers reached a consensus on coding the direction and strength of each recommendation.

Results: Finally, 26 CPGs were included in this study, and 14 of them, which included pharmacotherapy, were performed consistency analysis. 1) 64 recommendations from 14 CPGs were classified into 18 PICs. 2) Seven PICs (38%) were consistent in direction and strength, 10 PICs (56%) were consistent in direction but inconsistent in strength, and one PIC (6%) was inconsistent in direction (hydroxychloroquine, HCQ). 3) Sensitivity analysis tested the robustness, and the inconsistency remained high.

Conclusion: The direction was highly consistent among the recommendations of pharmacotherapy for RA, but the strength was highly inconsistent. Reasons for the inconsistency need to be further investigated, and consistent recommendations could guide the pharmacotherapy of RA in clinical practice.

Provider Perspectives on Patient- and Provider-Facing High Blood Pressure Clinical Decision Support

BACKGROUND

Hypertension, persistent high blood pressures (HBP) leading to chronic physiologic changes, is a common condition that is a major predictor of heart attacks, strokes, and other conditions. Despite strong evidence, care teams and patients are inconsistently adherent to HBP guideline recommendations. Patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) could help improve recommendation adherence but must also be acceptable to clinicians and patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to partly address the challenge of developing a patient-facing CDS application, we sought to understand provider variations and rationales related to HBP guideline recommendations and perceptions regarding patient role and use of digital tools.

METHODS

We engaged hypertension experts and primary care respondents to iteratively develop and implement a pilot survey and a final survey which presented five clinical cases that queried clinicians' attitudes related to actions; variations; prioritization; patient input; importance; and barriers for HBP diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment. Analysis of Likert's scale scores was descriptive with content analysis for free-text answers.

RESULTS

Fifteen hypertension experts and 14 providers took the pilot and final version of the surveys, respectively. The majority (>80%) of providers felt the recommendations were important, yet found them difficult to follow-up to 90% of the time. Perceptions of relative amounts of patient input and patient work for effective HBP management ranged from 22 to 100%. Stated reasons for variation included adverse effects of treatment, patient comorbidities, shared decision-making, and health care cost and access issues. Providers were generally positive toward patient use of electronic CDS applications but worried about access to health care, nuance of recommendations, and patient understanding of the tools.

CONCLUSION

At baseline, provider management of HBP is heterogeneous. Providers were accepting of patient-facing CDS but reported preferences for that CDS to capture the complexity and nuance of guideline recommendations.

An Evidence Review of Low-Value Care Recommendations: Inconsistency and Lack of Economic Evidence Considered

BACKGROUND

Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions.

DESIGN

We identified 1167 "low-value care" recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the "Choosing Wisely" Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed "low value" differed substantially across organizations. "No net clinical benefit" (N=428, 37%) and "little or no clinical benefit" (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of "low-value" care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.

Assessing Data Adequacy for High Blood Pressure Clinical Decision Support: A Quantitative Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study examines guideline-based high blood pressure (HBP) and hypertension recommendations and evaluates the suitability and adequacy of the data and logic required for a Fast Healthcare Interoperable Resources (FHIR)-based, patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) HBP application. HBP is a major predictor of adverse health events, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and kidney disease. Multiple guidelines recommend interventions to lower blood pressure, but implementation requires patient-centered approaches, including patient-facing CDS tools.

METHODS

We defined concept sets needed to measure adherence to 71 recommendations drawn from eight HBP guidelines. We measured data quality for these concepts for two cohorts (HBP screening and HBP diagnosed) from electronic health record (EHR) data, including four use cases (screening, nonpharmacologic interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and adverse events) for CDS.

RESULTS

We identified 102,443 people with diagnosed and 58,990 with undiagnosed HBP. We found that 21/35 (60%) of required concept sets were unused or inaccurate, with only 259 (25.3%) of 1,101 codes used. Use cases showed high inclusion (0.9-11.2%), low exclusion (0-0.1%), and missing patient-specific context (up to 65.6%), leading to data in 2/4 use cases being insufficient for accurate alerting.

DISCUSSION

Data quality from the EHR required to implement recommendations for HBP is highly inconsistent, reflecting a fragmented health care system and incomplete implementation of standard terminologies and workflows. Although imperfect, data were deemed adequate for two test use cases.

CONCLUSION

Current data quality allows for further development of patient-facing FHIR HBP tools, but extensive validation and testing is required to assure precision and avoid unintended consequences.

Concordance of recommendations across clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in Southeast Asia with internationally reputable sources

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the rate of concordance, and to investigate sources of non-concordance of recommendations in the management of hypertension across CPGs in Southeast Asia, with internationally reputable clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

METHODS

CPGs for the management of hypertension in Southeast Asia were retrieved from the websites of the Ministry of Health or cardiovascular specialty societies of the individual countries of Southeast Asia during November to December 2020. The recommendations for the management of hypertension specified in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline and the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guideline were selected to be the reference standards; the recommendations concerning the management of hypertension in the included CPGs in Southeast Asia were assessed if they were concordant with the reference recommendations generated from both the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline, using the population (P)-intervention (I)-comparison (C) combinations approach.

RESULTS

A total of 59 reference recommendations with unique and unambiguous P-I-C specifications was generated from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. In addition, a total of 51 reference recommendations with unique and unambiguous P-I-C specifications was generated from the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline. Considering the six included CPGs from Southeast Asia, concordance was observed for 30 reference recommendations (50.8%) out of 59 reference recommendations generated from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and for 31 reference recommendations (69.8%) out of 51 reference recommendations derived from the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension represents a significant issue that places health and economic strains in Southeast Asia and demands guideline-based care, yet CPGs in Southeast Asia have a high rate of non-concordance with internationally reputable CPGs. Concordant recommendations could perhaps be considered a standard of care for hypertension management in the Southeast Asia region.

Guidelines for hypertension management in primary care: is local adaptation possible?

OBJECTIVE

Hypertension affects more than one billion people worldwide. There has been much discussion about clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) following the proposal of lower thresholds for starting pharmacological treatment. Some smaller groups or institutions could benefit from adapting CPGs to their local context, a process that requires high-quality CPGs with few points of conflict in their recommendations. To address this issue, we have compared high-quality hypertension CPGs and highlighted conflicting recommendations.

METHODS

CPGs were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, as well as specific websites. Only CPGs published between 2016 and 2019 were included. We defined CPGs as high-quality if the 'rigor of development' and 'editorial independence' AGREE II domains were scored at least 60%. We compared recommendations made by high-quality CPGs and highlighted areas of conflict (defined as disagreements between more than two CPGs).

RESULTS

Nineteen CPGs were identified. The highest scoring domain was 'scope and purpose' (74.3%) and the lowest scoring was 'applicability' (40.0%). Eight CPGs were rated as high quality. Most CPG recommendations on the management of hypertension were consistent. Conflicting recommendations were regarding blood pressure (BP) levels to initiate pharmacotherapy and therapeutic goals, particularly in patients with low cardiovascular risk and older patients.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to adapt hypertension CPGs once high-quality documents have been identified with agreement between most recommendations. Guideline developers can focus on the adaption process and concentrate efforts on implementation.

Consistency of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

A significant knowledge gap exists for the management of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically investigate the consistency of recommendations from the available clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to those of the WHO on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We examined CPGs and UpToDate point-of-care resources on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients that had been published as of 30 April 2020 and compared them against the CPG by the WHO. The main outcome was the rate of consistency among CPGs for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence and by excluding single CPGs one at a time.

RESULTS

Thirteen reference recommendations derived from the CPG of the WHO were generated using discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states. Across CPGs, the rate of consistency in direction with the WHO is 7.7%. When insufficient evidence codings were excluded, the rate of consistency increased substantially to 61.5%. The results of a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested that the UpToDate recommendation source could explain the inconsistency. Consistency in direction rates changed by an absolute 23.1% (from 1/13 (7.7%) to 4/13 (30.8%)) if UpToDate was removed.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed inconsistencies between some recommendations of the CPGs and those of the WHO. These inconsistencies should best be addressed by consensus among the relevant bodies to avoid confusion in clinical practice while awaiting clinical trials to inform us of the best practice.