Pitfalls of clinical practice guidelines in the era of broken science: Let's raise the standards

Optimizing the Nutrition Support Care Model: Analysis of Survey Data

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is under-recognized and under-diagnosed, despite high prevalence rates and associated poor clinical outcomes. The involvement of clinical nutrition experts, especially physicians, in the care of high-risk patients with malnutrition remains low, despite evidence demonstrating lower complication rates with nutrition support team (NST) management. To facilitate solutions, a survey was designed to elucidate the nature of NSTs and physician involvement and identify needs for novel nutrition support care models.

METHODS

This survey assessed demographics of NSTs, factors contributing to the success of NSTs, elements of nutrition education, and other barriers to professional growth.

RESULTS

Of 255 respondents, 235 complete surveys were analyzed. The geographic distribution of respondents correlated with population concentrations of the United States (r = 90.8%, p-value <0.0001). Most responding physicians (80.7%) reported being a member of NSTs, compared with 56.5% of dietitians. Of those not practicing in NSTs (N = 81, 34.4%), 12.3% reported an NST was previously present at their institution but had been disbanded. Regarding NSTs, financial concerns were common (48.9%), followed by leadership (30.6%), and healthcare professional (HCP) interest (23.4%). A majority (73.6%) of all respondents wanted additional training in nutrition, but reported insufficient protected time, ability to travel, or support from administrators or other HCPs.

CONCLUSION

Core actions resulting from this survey focused on formalizing physician roles, increasing inter-disciplinary nutrition support expertise, utilizing cost-effective screening for malnutrition, and implementing intervention protocols. Additional actions included increasing funding for clinical practice, education, and research, all within an expanded portfolio of pragmatic nutrition support care models.

CLINICAL RELEVANCY STATEMENT

Physician engagement in nutrition support continues to remain low despite the increasing prevalence of malnutrition. This problem, and the working solution, is in the context of decreased engagement of other healthcare professionals in nutrition support, as well as declining Nutrition Support Team utilization. To address these issues, the ASPEN Physician Engagement Committee (PEC) conducted a survey of healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in nutrition support. Key findings include: (1) lack of financial support and physician champions with financial knowledge; (2) inadequate valuation of physicians and other nutrition support HCPs and NSTs, and their impact on clinical outcomes; and (3) significant barriers to primary and supplementary training for physicians in nutrition. Accordingly, the PEC recommends: (1) development of cost-effective screening and intervention for malnutrition; (2) expansion of nutrition support care models appropriately scaled to the available resources and expertise; and (3) development of a knowledge translation platform to foster transmission of novel breakthroughs while addressing research, knowledge, and practice gaps. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Quality assessment and comparative analysis on the recommendations of current guidelines on the management of peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is the third leading atherosclerotic arterial disease. There is evidence that there is a high variation in the quality and recommendations of clinical practice guidelines for PAD, leading to the possibility of confusion among clinicians and patients. This study aims to conduct a quality assessment and comparative analysis of the clinical practice guidelines on PAD written between 2010 and 2020.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

We aim to perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines written between 2010 and 2020. A search for guidelines will be conducted through medical databases Scope, Pubmed, TRIP, Guideline Clearinghouses and specialist international organisations' specific websites. Guidelines that meet the inclusion criteria will be extracted from the search result. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II instrument) will assess the quality of the selected guidelines. The recommendations, level of evidence and other relevant information will be extracted in a datasheet for qualitative analysis. The score for each guideline's quality will be represented using charts and central tendency measures for comparison. The summary of recommendations will also be represented in tables for easy comparison for similarities and variations across sections. Finally, the level of evidence on which the recommendations are based will also be noted along with other significant characteristics such as the authors' financial relationship to the biomedical community. We aim to point out deficiencies present in current guidelines and elucidate areas where recommendations are made with low-level evidence. The results will enable the scientific community to design future research to fill in PAD management knowledge gaps.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval was sought. Dissemination will be via journal articles and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020219176.

Predictability in Contemporary Medicine

Medical practice is increasingly coming under the guidance of statistical-mathematical models that are, undoubtedly, valuable tools but are also only a partial representation of reality. Indeed, given that statistics may be more or less adequate, a model is still a subjective interpretation of the researcher and is also influenced by the historical context in which it operates. From this opinion, I will provide a short historical excursus that retraces the advent of probabilistic medicine as a long process that has a beginning that should be sought in the discovery of the complexity of disease. By supporting the belonging of this evolution to the scientific domain it is also acknowledged that the underlying model can be imperfect or fallible and, therefore, confutable as any product of science. Indeed, it seems non-trivial here to recover these concepts, especially today where clinical decisions are entrusted to practical guidelines, which are a hybrid product resulting from the aggregation of multiple perspectives, including the probabilistic approach, to disease. Finally, before the advent of precision medicine, by limiting the use of guidelines to the original consultative context, an aged approach is supported, namely, a relationship with the individual patient.

[Cardiac biomarkers in noncardiac surgery patients : Review of cardiac biomarkers for risk stratification and detection of postoperative adverse cardiac events]

BACKGROUND

Yearly, more than 200 million people worldwide undergo noncardiac surgery of whom about 5% will suffer adverse cardiac events. Therefore, risk stratification and early detection of these events is crucial.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this review is to summarize the currently available evidence on the role of biomarkers in perioperative cardiac risk assessment. It presents current data of the established biomarkers troponin and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and it also reports on new biomarkers that are still under evaluation, e.g. copeptin (a marker of neurohumoral activation) and presepsin (an inflammation marker).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Narrative review.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

According to currently available data, there is a strong association between preoperative troponin or BNP values and postoperative adverse cardiac events and mortality. However, to date, there is only a weak recommendation for routine measurement of these biomarkers even in high-risk patients because the evidence on outcome improvement is still very limited. The evidence on treatment options in case of increased postoperative troponin values is also scarce so that international guidelines come to different conclusions regarding postoperative measurement of toponin. Meanwhile, several new biomarkers are under evaluation.

"Evidence-Based Interventional Pain Medicine According to Clinical Diagnoses": Update 2018

Introduction

Between 2009 and 2011 a series of 26 articles on evidence‐based medicine for interventional pain medicine according to clinical diagnoses were published. The high number of publications since the last literature search justified an update.

Methods

For the update an independent 3rd party, specialized in systematic reviews was asked in 2015 to perform the literature search and summarize relevant evidence using Cochrane and GRADE methodology to compile guidelines on interventional pain management. The guideline committee reviewed the information and made a last update on March 1st 2018. The information from new studies published after the research performed by the 3th party and additional observational studies was used to incorporate other factors such as side effects and complications, invasiveness, costs and ethical factors, which influence the ultimate recommendations.

Results

For the different indications a total of 113 interventions were evaluated. Twenty‐seven (24%) interventions were new compared to the previous guidelines and the recommendation changed for only 3 (2.6%) of the interventions.

Discussion

This article summarizes the evolution of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations for the interventional pain treatment options for 28 clinical pain diagnoses.

Adjunctive Intermittent Pneumatic Compression for Venous Thromboprophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Whether adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis would result in a lower incidence of deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone is uncertain.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients who were considered adults according to the local standards at the participating sites (≥14, ≥16, or ≥18 years of age) within 48 hours after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive either intermittent pneumatic compression for at least 18 hours each day in addition to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group). The primary outcome was incident (i.e., new) proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis, as detected on twice-weekly lower-limb ultrasonography after the third calendar day since randomization until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

A total of 2003 patients underwent randomization - 991 were assigned to the pneumatic compression group and 1012 to the control group. Intermittent pneumatic compression was applied for a median of 22 hours (interquartile range, 21 to 23) daily for a median of 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 13). The primary outcome occurred in 37 of 957 patients (3.9%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 41 of 985 patients (4.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.44; P = 0.74). Venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or any lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis) occurred in 103 of 991 patients (10.4%) in the pneumatic compression group and in 95 of 1012 patients (9.4%) in the control group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and death from any cause at 90 days occurred in 258 of 990 patients (26.1%) and 270 of 1011 patients (26.7%), respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill patients who were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression did not result in a significantly lower incidence of proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis than pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone. (Funded by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; PREVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02040103; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN44653506.).