[The GRADE system: a prologue to the article series in the ZEFQ]

Recommendations for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in primary care: study protocol for a systematic guideline review

INTRODUCTION

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was the main cause of death in Germany in 2021, with major risk factors (ie, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, obesity and certain lifestyle factors) being highly prevalent. Preventing ASCVD by assessment and modification of these risk factors is an important challenge for general practitioners. This study aims to systematically review and synthesise recent recommendations of national and international guidelines regarding the primary prevention of ASCVD in adults in primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to evaluate primary prevention strategies for ASCVD. CPGs will be retrieved from MEDLINE and the Turning Research Into Practice database, guideline-specific databases and websites of guidelines-producing societies, with searches limited to publications from 2016 onwards. We will include CPGs in English, Spanish, German or Dutch languages that provide evidence-based recommendations for ASCVD prevention. The study population will include adults without diagnosed ASCVD. Two independent reviewers will assess guideline eligibility and quality by means of the mini-checklist MiChe, and extract study characteristics and relevant recommendations for further consistency analysis. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements. Findings will be presented as a narrative synthesis and in tabular form.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval. Our systematic review will inform the CPG of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians on the primary prevention of ASCVD. The review results will also be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at local, national and international conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023394605.

[How to interpret the certainty of evidence based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation)]

BACKGROUND

GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is a widely used approach in the fields of medicine and public health to assess the outcome-specific certainty of the evidence in systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To make the GRADE approach comprehensible in order to facilitate the reading, understanding and interpretation of GRADE assessments in systematic reviews.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Presentation of the procedure of the GRADE approach using the example of a Cochrane review on selenium supplements in the prevention of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

GRADE provides criteria for rating the certainty of evidence. GRADE's approach to rating the certainty of the evidence is based on a four-level system (high, moderate, low, very low). The GRADE approach classifies bodies of randomized controlled trials as initially starting at high certainty and bodies of observational studies at initially starting at low certainty. By assessing the five domains (risk for bias, inconsistency, indirectness, insufficient precision and publication bias), certainty can be rated down or, in the case of large effects, existing dose-response relationships or plausible confounders, rated up.

CONCLUSIONS

GRADE is a consistent and transparent approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence by offering explicit key questions.

The future development of intensive care quality indicators - a methods paper

Introduction: Medical quality indicators (QI) are important tools in the evaluation of medical quality. Their development is subject to specific methodological requirements, which include practical applicability. This is especially true for intensive care medicine with its complex processes and their interactions. This methods paper presents the status quo and shows necessary methodological developments for intensive care QI. For this purpose, a cooperation with the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies' Institute for Medical Knowledge Management (AWMF-IMWi) was established. Methodology: Review of published German manuals for QI development from guidelines and narrative review of quality indicators with a focus on evidence and consensus-based guideline recommendations. Future methodological adaptations of indicator development for improved operationalization, measurability and pilot testing are presented, and a development process is proposed. Results: The development of intensive care quality indicators in Germany is based on an established process. In the future, additional evaluation criteria (QUALIFY criteria) will be applied to assess the evidence base. In addition, a continuous exchange between the national steering committee of the DIVI responsible for QI development and guideline development groups involved in intensive care medicine is planned. Conclusion: Intensive care quality indicators will have to meet improved methodological requirements in the future by means of an improved development process. Future QI development is intended to improve the structure of the development process, with a focus on scientific evidence and a link to guideline projects. This is intended to achieve the goal of a broad application of QI and to further evaluate its relevance for patient outcome and performance of institutions.