Evidence to Decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations

Is it premature to formulate recommendations for policy and practice, based on culture and health research? A robust critique of the CultureForHealth (2022) report

Introduction

Arts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research-without critical appraisal of included studies-do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions.

Methods

We performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023).

Results

The 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability.

Conclusions

The absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health.

Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey

BACKGROUND

Oral diseases are a major global public health problem, impacting the quality of life of those affected. While consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in oral health globally and survey the methodological process followed to formulate recommendations.

METHODS

We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012-October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization's characteristics, key features of their guidelines, and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data.

RESULTS

We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in oral health. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). In total, organizations produced 55 different guideline document types, most of them containing recommendations for clinical practice (77%). Panels were primarily composed of healthcare professionals (87%), followed by research methodologists (40%), policymakers (24%), and patient partners (18%). Most (60%) of the guidelines reported their funding source, but only one out of three (33%) included a conflict of interest (COI) policy management. The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in oral health guidelines with current international standards to formulate trustworthy recommendations.

Methodological quality and clinical recommendations of guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias for cardiovascular disease risk reduction: a systematic review and an appraisal through AGREE II and AGREE REX tools

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements to assist practitioners and stakeholders in decisions about healthcare. Low methodological quality guidelines may prejudice decision-making and negatively affect clinical outcomes in non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases worsted by poor lipid management. We appraised the quality of CPGs on dyslipidemia management and synthesized the most updated pharmacological recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic review following international recommendations was performed. Searches to retrieve CPG on pharmacological treatments in adults with dyslipidaemia were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Trip databases. Eligible articles were assessed using AGREE II (methodological quality) and AGREE-REX (recommendation excellence) tools. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. The most updated guidelines (published after 2019) had their recommendations qualitatively synthesized in an exploratory analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 66 guidelines authored by professional societies (75%) and targeting clinicians as primary users were selected. The AGREE II domains Scope and Purpose (89%) and Clarity of Presentation (97%), and the AGREE-REX item Clinical Applicability (77.0%) obtained the highest values. Conversely, guidelines were methodologically poorly performed/documented (46%) and scarcely provided data on the implementability of practical recommendations (38%). Recommendations on pharmacological treatments are overall similar, with slight differences concerning the use of supplements and the availability of drugs.

CONCLUSION

High-quality dyslipidaemia CPG, especially outside North America and Europe, and strictly addressing evidence synthesis, appraisal, and recommendations are needed, especially to guide primary care decisions. CPG developers should consider stakeholders' values and preferences and adapt existing statements to individual populations and healthcare systems to ensure successful implementation interventions.

Dexmedetomidine and acute kidney injury after non-cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after surgery and is associated with detrimental outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated perioperative dexmedetomidine on AKI and renal function after non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until August 2023 for randomised trials comparing dexmedetomidine with normal saline on AKI and renal function in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI (according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes or Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria). Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. We conducted sensitivity analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation level of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving 2440 patients were included. Dexmedetomidine administration, as compared to normal saline, significantly reduced the incidence of AKI (7.4% vs. 13.2%; risk ratio = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.40-0.83, P =  0.003, I2 = 0%; a high level of evidence); TSA and sensitivity analyses suggested the robustness of this outcome. For the renal function and inflammation parameters, dexmedetomidine decreased serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, cystatin C, tumour necrosis factor-α, and interleukin-6, and increased urine output and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Additionally, dexmedetomidine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting and length of hospital stay. Dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased rate of bradycardia, but not hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine administration reduced the incidence of AKI and improved renal function after non-cardiac surgery. Based on a high level of evidence, dexmedetomidine is recommended as a component of perioperative renoprotection.

REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; Registration number: CRD42022299252.

Participatory development of a target policy profile to support soil-transmitted helminth elimination

Introduction

Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) are parasitic worms that infect nearly a quarter of the world's population, particularly those living in communities without access to adequate water, sanitation, and housing. Emerging evidence suggests that it may be possible to interrupt transmission of STH by deworming individuals of all ages via community-wide MDA (cMDA), as opposed to only treating children and other focal populations. Transitioning from a policy of STH control to STH elimination in targeted areas would require a fundamental shift in STH policy and programming. This policy change would require updated guidance to support countries as they adapt their current approaches for STH surveillance, supply chain management, community mobilization, and core programmatic activities in pursuit of STH elimination. There is an opportunity to engage with key stakeholders, such as program implementers and implementation partners, to understand what evidence they need to confidently adopt a new policy guideline and to deliver guideline adherent management at scale.

Methods

We aimed to engage with STH stakeholders to develop a Target Policy Profile (TPoP), a single document that describes optimal characteristics and evidence requirements that STH stakeholders prioritized in future potential STH transmission interruption efforts. Steps in TPoP development included a scoping review and key informant interviews (KIIs), which were used to design a two-stage Delphi technique to identify and verify TPoP components.

Results

The scoping review resulted in 25 articles, and 8 experts participated in KII's. Twenty respondents completed the first Delphi survey and 10 respondents completed the second. This systematic effort resulted in a net of 3 key information domains (background/context, clinical considerations, and implementation considerations) encompassing 24 evidence categories (examples include evidence regarding safety and adverse events, implementation feasibility, or evidence dissemination). For each evidence category, STH stakeholders reviewed, endorsed, or revised a range of options for how the evidence could be presented.

Discussion

This information can be used by guideline committees or global policy makers prior to convening guideline advisory groups. The TPoP tool may also speed the process of stakeholder consensus building around guidelines, accelerating progress towards implementing evidence-based policy at scale.

Development, Evaluation, and impLemenTation for guideline adaptation: a quality improvement protocol for the DELTA study in global health practice

BACKGROUND

Guideline adaptation is an emerging field to provide more appropriate recommendations for local clinical practice quality and to promote global health equity. However, its utilization status, adaptation procedures, and related materials remain to be studied.

METHODS

This study developed a quality improvement protocol for a study as the Development, Evaluation, and impLemenTation for guideline Adaptation (DELTA) study. Current adapted clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) will be systematically searched. Their characteristics, utilization status, and adaptation procedures will be extracted, compared, and analyzed. Whether these adapted CPGs rigorously followed the instruments and steps of adaptation frameworks will also be appraised. In addition, the advantages and limitations of current adaptation methods and their suitable application situations will be analyzed. In addition, future perspectives as DELTA series and DELTA system, aiming for comprehensively evaluating current needs for guideline adaptation and developing a unified framework and related materials were proposed to improve the acceptability, applicability, and implementation of guideline adaptation in clinical practice. The DELTA series are divided into four phases: phase I in analyzing status, characteristics, and procedures and completeness of adapted CPGs; phase II in analyzing differences, heterogeneity, and implementation between adapted and original CPGs; and phase III in collecting, analyzing, and comparing all available adaptation materials. With these research bases, an international working group will be established in phase IV and will develop unified guideline adaptation materials after Delphi consensus, including adaptation frameworks, appraisal tools and checklists, registries, and databases.

DISCUSSION

Guideline adaptation has been advanced as an efficient way to guide local clinical practice. However, it still faces several major challenges. The proposed DELTA study, series, and system will further contribute to this emerging topic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

 This study has been registered by the PROSPERO international database. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=400170 .

How oral health care organizations formulate actionable statements to inform practice and policy: A protocol for a systematic survey

Background: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem that impacts the quality of life of those affected. While widespread consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This systematic survey aims to identify organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally, and describe the methods and processes used. Methods: We will conduct manual searches on the websites of guideline developers, Ministries of Health, and scientific societies. Additionally, we will systematically search electronic databases to identify published guidelines and collect the name of the responsible entity. We will include organizations that regularly develop guidelines on any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in its development process. Subsequently, we will use a standardized form to extract data about the characteristics of the organization, the characteristics of their guideline or policy documents, and their formal recommendation development processes. These data will be extracted from various sources, such as the organization's official website, the methods section of each guideline, or methodological handbooks. We will use descriptive statistics to analyze the extracted data. Discussion: This systematic survey will synthesize key characteristics and methodologies used by organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines. This study will provide the basis for future development of a sustainable and connected collaborative network for evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and targeted dissemination of findings with the identified organizations. Our systematic survey represents a necessary first step toward improving the field of oral health policies and guidelines.

Using evidence to decision frameworks led to guidelines of better quality and more credible and transparent recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is associated to higher quality of both guidelines and individual recommendations.

METHODS

We identified guidelines recently published by international organizations that have methodological guidance documents for their development. Pairs of researchers independently extracted information on the use of these frameworks, appraised the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE-II), and assessed the clinical credibility and implementability of the recommendations with the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool. We conducted both descriptive and inferential analyses.

RESULTS

We included 66 guidelines from 17 different countries, published in the last 5 years. Thirty guidelines (45%) used an EtD framework to formulate their recommendations. Compared to those that did not use a framework, those using an EtD framework scored higher in all domains of both AGREE-II and AGREE-REX (P < 0.05). Quality scores did not differ between the use of the The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-EtD framework (17 guidelines) or another EtD framework (13 guidelines) (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of EtD frameworks is associated with guidelines of better quality, and more credible and transparent recommendations. Endorsement of EtD frameworks by guideline developing organizations will likely increase the quality of their guidelines.

Investigating how the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework is used in Clinical Guidelines: a scoping review protocol

Introduction: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework provides a structured and transparent approach for clinical guideline developers to use when formulating recommendations. Understanding how stakeholders use the EtD framework will inform how best to provide future training and support. This scoping review objective is to identify the key characteristics of how the GRADE EtD framework is used and identify studies on perception of use by those involved in developing clinical guidelines. Methods: JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. This scoping review will consider both peer review published literature and grey literature. This will include empirical studies on the use of EtDs (including both quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods primary research articles) and discussion papers/ commentaries on the experience of using the EtD. It will also include a random sample of publicly available populated EtDs identified from databases and repositories of GRADE guidelines. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents. First, we will conduct an exploratory search of MEDLINE and Embase (Elsevier), supplemented with citation analysis of included articles. Populated EtDs will be identified through searches of databases and repositories of GRADE guidelines. Two researchers will independently screen, select, and extract identified documents. Data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively. Conclusion: This scoping review will identify the key characteristics of how the GRADE EtD framework is currently being used in clinical guidelines. Review findings can be used to inform future guidance and requirements for using GRADE EtD, as well as training on how to consider the criteria in developing recommendations. Results will be disseminated through publications in peer - reviewed journals and conference presentations. We will present our findings to relevant stakeholders via the networks of the co-author team at a one-day workshop.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations.

METHODS

We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94).

CONCLUSION

Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.