Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper

Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has required evidence to be made available more rapidly than usual, in order to meet the needs of decision makers in a timely manner. These exceptional circumstances have caused significant challenges for organizations and teams responsible for evidence synthesis. They had to adapt to provide rapid responses to support decision-making. This study aimed to document (1) the challenges and adaptations made to produce rapid responses during the pandemic, (2) their perceived usefulness, reported use and factors influencing their use and (3) the methodological adaptations made to produce rapid responses.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in 2021 with eight organizations in the health and social services system in Quebec (Canada), including three institutes with a provincial mandate. Data collection included focus groups (n = 9 groups in 8 organizations with 64 participants), interviews with decision makers (n = 12), and a document analysis of COVID-19 rapid responses (n = 128). A thematic analysis of qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) and a descriptive analysis of documents (objective 3) were conducted.

RESULTS

The results highlight the teams and organizations' agility to deal with the many challenges encountered during the pandemic (e.g., increased their workloads, adoption of new technological tools or work processes, improved collaboration, development of scientific monitoring, adaptation of evidence synthesis methodologies and products). The challenge of balancing rigor and speed was reported by teams and organizations. When available at the right time, rapid responses have been reported as a useful tool for informing or justifying decisions in a context of uncertainty. Several factors that may influence their use were identified (e.g., clearly identify needs, interactions with producers, perceived rigor and credibility, precise and feasible recommendations). Certain trends in the methodological approaches used to speed up the evidence synthesis process were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented rapid responses producers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, and decision makers who requested, consulted, or used these products. Potential areas of improvements are identified such as reinforce coordination, improve communication loops, clarify guidelines or methodological benchmarks, and enhance utility of rapid response products for decision makers.

Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a scoping review

Introduction

Our objective was to identify recent CPGs for the diagnosis and management of DMD and summarize their characteristics and reliability.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of CPGs using MEDLINE, the Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) database, Google Scholar, guidelines created by organizations, and other repositories to identify CPGs published in the last 5 years. Our protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for scoping reviews. To assess the reliability of the CPGs, we used all the domains included in the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II.

Results

We selected three CPGs published or updated between 2015 and 2020. All the guidelines showed good or adequate methodological rigor but presented pitfalls in stakeholder involvement and applicability domains. Recommendations were coherent across CPGs on steroid treatment, except for minor differences in dosing regimens. However, the recommendations were different for new drugs.

Discussion

There is a need for current and reliable CPGs that develop broad topics on the management of DMD and consider the challenges of developing recommendations for RDs.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline

OBJECTIVES

Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline.

RESULTS

We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

Ketamine as adjunctive or monotherapy for post-intubation sedation in patients with trauma on mechanical ventilation: A rapid review

Background

The effectiveness of ketamine as adjunctive or monotherapy for post-intubation sedation in adults with trauma on mechanical ventilation is unclear.

Methods

A rapid review of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, then randomized controlled trials or observational studies was conducted searching three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and one clinical trial registry on June 1, 2022. We used a prespecified protocol following Cochrane rapid review methods.

Results

We identified eight systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Among the included reviews, only the most relevant, up to date, highest quality-assessed reviews and reviews that reported on critical outcomes were considered. Adjunctive ketamine showed a morphine sparing effect (MD -13.19 µmg kg-1 h-1, 95 % CI -22.10 to -4.28, moderate certainty of evidence, 6 RCTs), but no to little effect on midazolam sparing effect (MD 0.75 µmg kg-1 h-1, 95 % CI -1.11 to 2.61, low certainty of evidence, 6 RCTs) or duration of mechanical ventilation in days (MD -0.17 days, 95 % CI -3.03 to 2.69, moderate certainty of evidence, 3 RCTs).Adjunctive ketamine therapy may reduce mortality (OR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.54 to 1.43, P = 0.60, very low certainty of evidence, 5 RCTs, n = 3076 patients) resulting in 30 fewer deaths per 1000, ranging from 132 fewer to 87 more, but the evidence is very uncertain. Ketamine results in little to no difference in length of ICU stay (MD 0.04 days, 95 % CI -0.12 to 0.20, high certainty of evidence, 5 RCTs n = 390 patients) or length of hospital stay (MD -0.53 days, 95 % CI -1.36 to 0.30, high certainty of evidence, 5 RCTs, n = 277 patients).Monotherapy may have a positive effect on respiratory and haemodynamic outcomes, however the evidence is very uncertain.

Conclusion

Adjunctive ketamine for post-intubation analgosedation results in a moderate meaningful net benefit but there is uncertainty for benefit and harms as monotherapy.

Signal of harm in morphine use in adults with acute pulmonary oedema: A rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

Heart failure affects nearly 65 million people globally, resulting in recurrent hospital admissions and substantial healthcare expenditure. The use of morphine in the management of acute pulmonary oedema remains controversial, with conflicting guidance and significant variation in practice. Synthesised evidence is needed to inform standard treatment guidelines and clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether morphine should be used in the treatment of acute pulmonary oedema (APE) in adults.

METHODS

A rapid review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or observational studies, and then randomised controlled trials, was conducted searching three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and one clinical trial registry on 12 February 2022. We used a prespecified protocol following Cochrane rapid review methods and aligned to the National Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines List methodology. We first considered relevant high-quality systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or observational studies, then (if required) randomised controlled trials to inform time-sensitive or urgent evidence requests, clinical practice, policy, or standard treatment guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified four systematic reviews of observational studies. The two most relevant, up-to-date, and highest-quality reviews were used to inform evidence for critical outcomes. Morphine may increase in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 - 3.13; low certainty of evidence; six observational studies, n=151 735 participants), resulting in 15 more per 1 000 hospital deaths, ranging from 0 to 40 more hospital deaths. Morphine may result in a large increase in invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.09 - 6.80; low certainty of evidence; four observational studies, n=167 847 participants), resulting in 45 more per 1 000 ventilations, ranging from 2 more to 136 more. Adverse events and hospital length of stay were not measured across reviews or trials.

CONCLUSION

Based on the most recent, relevant and best-available quality evidence, morphine use in adults with APE may increase in-hospital and all-cause mortality and may result in a large increase in the need for invasive mechanical ventilation compared to not using morphine. Recommending against the use of morphine in pulmonary oedema may improve patient outcomes. Disinvesting in morphine for this indication may result in cost savings, noting the possible accrued benefits of fewer patients requiring invasive ventilation and management of morphine-related side-effects.

Strong recommendations from low certainty evidence: a cross-sectional analysis of a suite of national guidelines

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines should be based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and generally include a rating of the quality of evidence and assign a strength to recommendations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance warns against making strong recommendations when the certainty of the evidence is low or very low, but has identified five paradigmatic situations (e.g. life-threatening situations) where this may be justified.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to characterize the strength of recommendations and certainty of the evidence in Irish National Clinical Guidelines using the GRADE approach.

METHODS

All National Clinical Guidelines from the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) website using the GRADE approach (fully or partially) were included. All recommendations and their corresponding certainty of the evidence, strength of recommendations and justifications were extracted. Authors classified instances of strong recommendations with low certainty evidence (referred to as discordant recommendations) into one of the five paradigmatic situations. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

From the 29 NCEC Clinical Guidelines available at the time of analysis, we identified 8 guidelines using GRADE with a total of 240 recommendations; 38 recommendations did not use the GRADE approach and were excluded. Half of the included guidelines focused on emergency situations. In the final dataset of 202 recommendations, 151 (74.7%) were classified as strong and 51 (25.3%) as conditional. Of the 151 strong recommendations, 55 (36.4%) were supported by high or moderate certainty evidence and 96 (63.6%) by low or very low certainty evidence and were considered discordant. Of these 96 discordant recommendations, 55 (73.7%) were consistent with one of the five paradigmatic situations. However, none were specifically described as such within the guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of discordant recommendations identified in this analysis was higher than some previous international studies (range of all strong recommendations being discordant 30-50%), but similar to other guidelines focused on emergency situations. The majority of discordant recommendations could be mapped to one of the five situations, but no National Clinical Guideline explicitly referenced this. Guideline developers require further guidance to enable greater transparency in the reporting of the reasons for discordant recommendations.

A Delphi consensus checklist helped assess the need to develop rapid guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop a checklist to aid guideline developers in determining which scientific or societal cause ("triggers") are relevant when considering to initiate a rapid recommendation procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a two-round modified Delphi procedure with a panel of Dutch guideline experts, clinicians, and patient representatives. A previously conducted systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with four science journalists were used to generate a list of potential items. This item list was submitted to the panel for discussion, reduction and refinement into a checklist.

RESULTS

Thirteen experts took part. Two questionnaires were completed in which participants scored an initial list of 64 items based on relevance. During two online meetings, the scores were discussed, irrelevant items were removed, and relevant items were reformulated into seven questions. The final "quickscan assessment of the need for a rapid recommendation" covers user perspective, scientific evidence, clinical relevance, clinical practice variation, applicability, quality of care and public health outcomes, and ethical/legal considerations.

CONCLUSION

The quickscan aids guideline developers in systematically assessing whether a trigger expresses a valid need for developing a rapid recommendation. Future research could focus on the applicability and validity of the checklist within guideline development programs.

Testing guidelines during times of crisis: challenges and limitations of developing rapid and living guidelines

BACKGROUND

The start of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a situation in which there was an urgent need for decision-making that relates to diagnosis, but the evidence was lacking, of low certainty or constantly changing. Rapid and living guideline development methods were needed and had to be applied to rigorous guideline approaches, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the process of developing rapid diagnosis guidelines when there is limited and imperfect available data at the time of crisis.

SOURCES

Case example from four Infectious Disease Society of America COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines.

CONTENT

As the world was experiencing panic with COVID-19, there were serious doubts about the feasibility of following a rigorous process for guideline development when timeliness was of extreme value. The Infectious Disease Society of America guideline panels supported by several methodologists strongly believed that at times of crisis, it is more important than ever to follow a rigorous process. The panel adopted a rapid and living systematic review methodology and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to four diagnosis guidelines despite the challenges of scarce and dynamic evidence. We describe the methodological details of the rapid and living approach (data extraction, meta-analysis, Evidence to Decision framework, and recommendation development), the challenge of resources, the challenge of scarce evidence, the challenge of rapidly changing evidence, as well as 'wins' from the Infectious Disease Society of America experience.

IMPLICATIONS

Mitigation of pandemics relies on rapid and accurate diagnosis, which is challenged by many knowledge gaps. This necessitates emerging evidence is rapidly incorporated in a living fashion with several decisional and contextual factors to ensure the best public health strategies and care for patients. This process must be systematic and transparent for developing trustworthy guidelines and should be supported by all stakeholders, including researchers, editors, publishers, professional societies, and policymakers.

Digitally-enabled, patient-centred care in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity: The ARIA-MASK-air® approach

MASK-air^® , a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air^® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air^® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air^® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air^® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.

Guidelines and evidence-based recommendations in anaesthesia: where do we stand?

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly important to guide clinical care. However, they can vary widely in quality, and many recommendations are based on low-level evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for new flexible formats for rigorously developed guidelines. Future guideline development should be standardised, graded, registered, and updated to ensure that they are 'living' works in progress.

Inspiring stories: the impact that being part of ERS activities can have on a professional career

In this article, we provide an overview of the impact that being part of the @EuroRespSoc activities can have on a professional career, through the voices of Early Career Members (@EarlyCareerERS) https://bit.ly/32sHNW2.

Methodological approaches for developing, reporting, and assessing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: A systematic survey

OBJECTIVE

To produce a mapping and feature summary of approaches and tools available for the CPG community to develop, report, or assess four types of CPGs: (1) Standard original (or de novo) CPG, (2) Rapid original CPG, (3) Adapted/adopted CPGs, and (4) Updated CPGs.

STUDY DESIGN

The systematic literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to October 13 2020. Two websites that collect and recommend approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess CPGs were also searched: Guidelines International Network and Equator Network. We screened the search results to include methodological papers that aimed to develop specific approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess any of the aforementioned four CPG types.

RESULTS

Among 10,581 citations, 46 papers reporting 46 approaches/tools were included. Of these 46 approaches/tools, 33 were about CPG development, seven were for CPG reporting, and six for CPG assessment. Among the 33 development approaches/tools, 26 did not state usability or validity information; but nine from 13 reporting or assessment approaches/tools did.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a mapping and feature summary of the current available approaches/tools, which serves to improve users' understanding to pave the way for informed choice and application.

Recommendations for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care, are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options, and ensure that the best available clinical knowledge is used to provide effective and quality care. They can reduce inappropriate care and variability in clinical practice and can support the translation of new research knowledge into clinical practice. Recommendations from clinical practice guidelines can support health professionals by facilitating the decision-making process, empowering them to make more informed health care choices, clarifying which interventions should be priorities based on a favorable trade-off, and discouraging the use of those that have proven ineffective, dangerous, or wasteful. This review aims to summarize the key components of high-quality and trustworthy guidelines. Articles were retrieved from various libraries, databases, and search engines using free-text term searches adapted for different databases, and selected according to author discretion. Clinical practice guidelines in geriatrics can have a major impact on prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, health care, and the management of diseases and conditions, but they should only be implemented when they have high-quality, rigorous, and unbiased methodologies that consider older adult priorities and provide valid recommendations.

QUALITY APPRAISAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES ON PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES DURING THE FIRST MONTHS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Objectives

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on dental services provision during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

We systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Epistemonikos, Trip databases, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health to identify documents with recommendations intended to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during dental care. Reviewers independently and in duplicate assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardized scores for the 6 domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. The inter-appraiser agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Twenty-three CPGs published were included. Most of the CPGs were from America (n = 15) and Europe (n = 6). The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.93; 95%CI 0.87-0.95). The median score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 67% (IQR 20%); Stakeholder involvement 33% (IQR 14%); Rigour of development 13% (IQR 13%); Clarity of presentation 64% (IQR 31%); Applicability 19% (IQR 17%) and Editorial independence 8% (IQR 8%). Twenty two guidelines were not recommended by the reviewers. Only one of the CPGs was recommended with modifications. The median overall rate was 3 (IQR 1). All CPGs were classified as low quality.

Conclusions

The overall quality of CPGs on dental services provision during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic was low, which makes its implementation difficult for clinicians and policy makers. Therefore, it is critical that developers are transparent and forthcoming about the difficulties that have arisen during the CPG development process.

Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review

AIM

The objectives of this scoping review are to identify the challenges to conducting evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic and to propose some recommendations addressing the identified gaps.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was followed to map the literature published on the challenges and solutions of conducting evidence synthesis using the Joanna Briggs Methodology of performing scoping review. We searched several databases from the start of the Pandemic in December 2019 until 10th June 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 28 publications was included in the review. The challenges cited in the included studies have been categorised into four distinct but interconnected themes including: upstream, Evidence synthesis, downstream and contextual challenges. These challenges have been further refined into issues with primary studies, databases, team capacity, process, resources, and context. Several proposals to improve the above challenges included: transparency in primary studies registration and reporting, establishment of online platforms that enables collaboration, data sharing and searching, the use of computable evidence and coordination of efforts at an international level.

CONCLUSION

This review has highlighted the importance of including artificial intelligence, a framework for international collaboration and a sustained funding model to address many of the shortcomings and ensure we are ready for similar challenges in the future.

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19: A meta-epidemiological study

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID-19 research. This meta-epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID-19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID-19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I² statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta-analyses had high values of I² . Among the meta-analyses using the random-effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta-analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian-Laird method was the most used one.

CONCLUSIONS

The current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID-19 strictly follow well-developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta-analysis models.

Recommendations for Safe Dental Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical to guide dental staff towards the safe provision of dental care; detailed knowledge of the recommendations will help to achieve the intended results. We carried out a systematic review of the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the provision of dental care issued during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Epistemonikos, and Trip databases to identify documents with recommendations intended to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during dental care. The selection process and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. The majority of CPGs recommended the use of rubber dam, high-volume evacuator, mouthwash prior to dental care, four-handed work, and mechanical barriers. The use of aerosol-generating equipment should be avoided whenever possible. In aerosol-generating procedures, the use of a N95 respirator (or similar) is recommended, in addition to a face protector, an impermeable disposable apron/gown, a cap, and gloves. The CPGs developed during the first year of the pandemic offer recommendations which guide dental staff in providing safe dental care, minimizing exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in the clinical environment. Such recommendations must, however, be updated as new evidence arises.

A taxonomy and framework for identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines suggests avoiding informal recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework.

RESULTS

The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process.

CONCLUSION

The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users.

Getting trustworthy guidelines into the hands of decision-makers and supporting their consideration of contextual factors for implementation globally: recommendation mapping of COVID-19 guidelines

Published research on COVID-19 is increasing rapidly and integrated in guidelines. The trustworthiness of guidelines can vary depending on the methods used to assemble and evaluate the evidence, the completeness and transparency of reporting on the process undertaken and how conflicts of interest are addressed.

With a global consortium of partners and collaborators, we have created a catalogue of COVID-19 recommendations as our direct response to the increased need for structured access to high quality guidance in the field. The COVID19 map of recommendations and gateway to contextualization (https://covid19.recmap.org) is a living project: emerging guideline literature is added on an ongoing basis, allowing granular access to individual recommendations.

Building on prior work on mapping recommendations for the World Health Organization tuberculosis guidelines, a novel feature of this map is the self-directed contextualization of the recommendations using the GRADE-Adolopment approach to adopt, adapt or synthesize de novo recommendations for context specific questions. Through our map, stakeholders access the evidence underpinning a recommendation, select what needs to be contextualized and go through the steps of development of adapted recommendations. This one-stop shop portal of evidence-informed recommendations, built with intuitive functionalities, easy to navigate and with a support team ready to guide users across the maps, represents a long-needed tool for decision-makers, guideline developers and the public at large.

Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to April 2021. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 279 living publications relating to 76 LSRs. Of the 279 publications, 11% were protocols, 23% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 50% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 16% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%); all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flow through the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to July 2020. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 108 living publications relating to 32 LSRs. Of the 108 publications, 7% were protocols, 24% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 62% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 7% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%);  all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flow through the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

PRISMA flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Background: While the PRISMA flow diagram is widely used for reporting standard systematic reviews (SRs), it was not designed for capturing the results of continual searches for studies in living systematic reviews (LSRs). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess how published LSRs report on the flow of studies through the different phases of the review for the different updates; (2) to propose an approach to reporting on that flow. Methods: For objective 1, we identified all LSRs published up to July 2020. We abstracted information regarding their general characteristics and how they reported on search results. For objective 2, we based our proposal for tailored PRISMA approaches on the findings from objective 1, as well as on our experience with conducting Cochrane LSRs. Results: We identified 108 living publications relating to 32 LSRs. Of the 108 publications, 7% were protocols, 24% were base versions (i.e., the first version), 62% were partial updates (i.e., does not include all typical sections of an SR), and 7% were full updates (i.e., includes all typical sections of an SR). We identified six ways to reporting the study flow: base separately, each update separately (38%); numbers not reported (32%); latest update separately, all previous versions combined (20%); base separately, all updates combined (7%); latest update version only (3%);  all versions combined (0%). We propose recording in detail the results of the searches to keep track of all identified records. For structuring the flow diagram, we propose using one of four approaches. Conclusion: We identified six ways for reporting the study flowthrough the different phases of the review for the different update versions. We propose to document in detail the study flow for the different search updates and select one of our four tailored PRISMA diagram approaches to present that study flow.

The Oncology Nursing Society Rapid Review and Research Priorities for Cancer Care in the Context of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities addressing COVID-19 that build on the 2019-2022 Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Research Agenda, in alignment with ONS's mission to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care.

METHODS & VARIABLES

Priority areas were identified using a multistep approach combining rapid review of the literature; consultation with experts/stakeholders; and review of priorities from other funding agencies, public health, and cancer-focused organizations.

RESULTS

The rapid research response team identified five priority areas for research related to COVID-19.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Oncology nurses are well positioned to address the research priorities and cross-cutting themes identified through this review. The use of innovative methodologic approaches and attention to disparities are necessary to advance cancer care related to COVID-19.