Developing and applying a 'living guidelines' approach to WHO recommendations on maternal and perinatal health

Use of multiple micronutrient supplementation integrated into routine antenatal care: A discussion of research priorities

Optimal maternal nutrition, including adequate intake and status of essential micronutrients, is important for the health of women and developing infants. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) Antenatal care recommendations for a positive pregnancy experience recommend daily iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation as the standard of care. The use of multiple micronutrient supplements (MMSs) is recommended in the context of rigorous research as more evidence was needed regarding the impact of switching from IFA supplements to MMS, including evaluation of critical clinical maternal and perinatal outcomes, acceptability, feasibility, sustainability, equity and cost-effectiveness. WHO convened a technical consultation of key stakeholders to discuss research priorities with the objective of providing guidance and clarity to donors, implementers and researchers about this recommendation. The overarching principles of the research agenda include the use of clinical indicators and impact measures that are applicable across studies and settings and the inclusion of outcomes that are important to women. Future studies should consider using standardized protocols based on current best practices to measure critical outcomes such as gestational age (GA) and birthweight (BW) in studies. As GA and BW are influenced by multiple factors, more research is needed to understand the biological impact pathways, and how initiation and considerations for timing of MMS influence these outcomes. A set of core clinical indicators was agreed upon during the technical consultation. For implementation research, the Evidence-to-Decision framework was used as a resource for discussing components of implementation research. The implementation research questions, key indicators and performance measures will depend on country-specific context and bottlenecks that require further research and improved solutions to enable the successful implementation of iron-containing supplements.

A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated?

METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates.

CONCLUSION

LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

Lessons Learned From Moving to Living Guidelines-The Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline for the Rehabilitation of Adults With Moderate-to-Severe TBI

OBJECTIVE

It is often challenging for providers to remain up to date with best practices gleaned from clinical research. Consequently, patients may receive inappropriate, suboptimal, and costly care. Living clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) maintain the methodological rigor of traditional CPGs but are continuously updated in response to new research findings, changes in clinical practice, and emerging evidence. The objective of this initiative was to discuss the lessons learned from the transformation of the Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline for the Rehabilitation of Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury (CAN-TBI) from a traditional guideline update model to a living guideline model.

DESIGN

The CAN-TBI Guideline provides evidence-based rehabilitative care recommendations for individuals who have sustained a TBI. The Guideline is divided into 2 sections: Section I, which provides guidance on the components of the optimal TBI rehabilitation system, and Section II, which focuses on the assessment and rehabilitation of brain injury sequelae. A comprehensive outline of the living guideline process is presented.

RESULTS

The CAN-TBI living guideline process has yielded 351 recommendations organized within 21 domains. Currently, 30 recommendations are supported by level A evidence, 81 recommendations are supported by level B evidence, and 240 consensus-based recommendations (level C evidence) comprise 68% of the CAN-TBI Guideline.

CONCLUSION

Given the increasing volume of research published on moderate-to-severe TBI rehabilitation, the CAN-TBI living guideline process allows for real-time integration of emerging evidence in response to the fastest-growing topics, ensuring that practitioners have access to the most current and relevant recommendations.

Global Management of Serious Bacterial Infections in Young Infants Aged 0 to 59 Days: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

To inform World Health Organization guidelines for the management of serious bacterial infection (SBI) (suspected or confirmed sepsis, pneumonia, or meningitis) in infants aged 0-59 days.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an "overview of systematic reviews" to: (1) understand which systematic reviews have examined diagnosis and management of SBI in infants aged 0-59 days in the last 5 years; and (2) assess if the reviews examined PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes) and regimens currently being recommended in low and middle income countries (LMICs) by the World Health Organization.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE; Embase; Cochrane Library; Epistemonikos; PROSPERO.

STUDY SELECTION

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or observational studies of infants aged 0-59 days examining diagnostic accuracy and antibiotic regimens for SBI from January 1, 2018 to November 3, 2023.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual independent extraction of study characteristics, PICOs, and methodological quality.

RESULTS

Nine systematic reviews met our criteria. Two reviews examined diagnostic accuracy for sepsis, and no reviews examined pneumonia or meningitis. Five reviews examined antibiotic effectiveness (sepsis [n = 4]; pneumonia [n = 1]), and no reviews examined meningitis. One review examined antibiotic duration for sepsis and one for meningitis, and no reviews for pneumonia. Only 4 of the 9 systematic reviews met criteria for high-quality.

LIMITATIONS

Our review was limited to the last 5 years to inform current guideline updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have examined antibiotic regimens currently being used in LMICs and quality is of concern in many studies. More high-quality data are needed to inform management of SBI in newborns, especially in LMICs.

Constructing evidence-based clinical intrapartum care algorithms for decision-support tools

AIM

To describe standardised iterative methods used by a multidisciplinary group to develop evidence-based clinical intrapartum care algorithms for the management of uneventful and complicated labours.

POPULATION

Singleton, term pregnancies considered to be at low risk of developing complications at admission to the birthing facility.

SETTING

Health facilities in low- and middle-income countries.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Literature reviews were conducted to identify standardised methods for algorithm development and examples from other fields, and evidence and guidelines for intrapartum care. Searches for different algorithm topics were last updated between January and October 2020 and included a combination of terms such as 'labour', 'intrapartum', 'algorithms' and specific topic terms, using Cochrane Library and MEDLINE/PubMED, CINAHL, National Guidelines Clearinghouse and Google.

CASE SCENARIOS

Nine algorithm topics were identified for monitoring and management of uncomplicated labour and childbirth, identification and management of abnormalities of fetal heart rate, liquor, uterine contractions, labour progress, maternal pulse and blood pressure, temperature, urine and complicated third stage of labour. Each topic included between two and four case scenarios covering most common deviations, severity of related complications or critical clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrapartum care algorithms provide a framework for monitoring women, and identifying and managing complications during labour and childbirth. These algorithms will support implementation of WHO recommendations and facilitate the development by stakeholders of evidence-based, up to date, paper-based or digital reminders and decision-support tools. The algorithms need to be field tested and may need to be adapted to specific contexts.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Evidence-based intrapartum care clinical algorithms for a safe and positive childbirth experience.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage.

RESULTS

Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

"Going into the black box": a policy analysis of how the World Health Organization uses evidence to inform guideline recommendations

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) plays a crucial role in producing global guidelines. In response to previous criticism, WHO has made efforts to enhance the process of guideline development, aiming for greater systematicity and transparency. However, it remains unclear whether these changes have effectively addressed these earlier critiques. This paper examines the policy process employed by WHO to inform guideline recommendations, using the update of the WHO Consolidated HIV Testing Services (HTS) Guidelines as a case study.

Methods

We observed guideline development meetings and conducted semi-structured interviews with key participants involved in the WHO guideline-making process. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. The data were deductively coded and analysed in line with the main themes from a published conceptual framework for context-based evidence-based decision making: introduction, interpretation, and application of evidence.

Results

The HTS guideline update was characterized by an inclusive and transparent process, involving a wide range of stakeholders. However, it was noted that not all stakeholders could participate equally due to gaps in training and preparation, particularly regarding the complexity of the Grading Recommendations Assessment Development Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We also found that WHO does not set priorities for which or how many guidelines should be produced each year and does not systematically evaluate the implementation of their recommendations. Our interviews revealed disconnects in the evidence synthesis process, starting from the development of systematic review protocols. While GRADE prioritizes evidence from RCTs, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) heavily emphasized "other" GRADE domains for which little or no evidence was available from the systematic reviews. As a result, expert judgements and opinions played a role in making recommendations. Finally, the role of donors and their presence as observers during GDG meetings was not clearly defined.

Conclusion

We found a need for a different approach to evidence synthesis due to the diverse range of global guidelines produced by WHO. Ideally, the evidence synthesis should be broad enough to capture evidence from different types of studies for all domains in the GRADE framework. Greater structure is required in formulating GDGs and clarifying the role of donors through the process.

The efficacy and safety of 25 μg or 50 μg oral misoprostol versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- or 6-hourly intervals for induction of labour in women at or beyond term with live singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is widely used for cervical ripening and labour induction as it is heat-stable and inexpensive. Oral misoprostol 25 μg given 2-hourly is recommended over vaginal misoprostol 25 μg given 6-hourly, but the need for 2-hourly fetal monitoring makes oral misoprostol impractical for routine use in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol initiated at 25 or 50 μg versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- to 6-hourly intervals for labor induction in women at or beyond term (≥ 37 weeks) with a single viable fetus and an unscarred uterus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified eligible randomized, parallel-group, labor-induction trials from recent systematic reviews. We additionally searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and clinical trials registries from February 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 without language restrictions. Database-specific keywords for cervical priming, labor induction, and misoprostol were used.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We excluded labor-induction trials exclusively in women with ruptured membranes, in the third trimester, and those that initiated misoprostol at doses not specified in the review's objectives. The primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 h, cesarean section, perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, and maternal morbidity. The secondary outcomes were uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, and oxytocin augmentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors selected studies independently, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We derived pooled weighted risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, subgrouping trials by the dose and frequency of misoprostol regimens. We used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the random-effects model for meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty (confidence) in the effect estimates.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials, from Canada, India, Iran, and the US, randomizing 2941 women at ≥37 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6), met the eligibility criteria. Five misoprostol regimens were compared: 25 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (three trials); 50 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (five trials); 50 μg followed by 100 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (two trials); 50 μg oral, 4-hourly versus 25 μg vaginal, 6-hourly (one trial); and 50 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 6-hourly (two trials). The overall certainty in the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, due to high risk of bias in 11/13 trials (affecting all outcomes), unexplained heterogeneity (1/7 outcomes), indirectness (1/7 outcomes), and imprecision (4/7 outcomes). Vaginal misoprostol probably increased vaginal deliveries within 24 h compared with oral misoprostol (risk ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; 11 trials, 2721 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence); this was more likely with 4-hourly than with 6-hourly vaginal regimens. The risk of cesarean sections did not appreciably differ (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; very low-certainty evidence), although oral misoprostol 25 μg 4-hourly probably increased this risk compared with 25 μg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21-2.36; three trials, 515 mothers). The risk of perinatal mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11-3.90; one trial, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence), neonatal morbidity (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.06; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; low-certainty evidence), and maternal morbidity (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48-1.44; 6 trials; 1945 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence) did not differ appreciably. The risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes may be lower with oral misoprostol (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95; 10 trials, 2565 mothers; low-certainty evidence). Oxytocin augmentation was probably more frequent with oral compared with vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10-1.51; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly vaginal misoprostol regimens probably result in more vaginal births within 24 h and less frequent oxytocin use compared with low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly, oral misoprostol regimens. Vaginal misoprostol may increase the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes compared with oral misoprostol, without increasing the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, or maternal morbidity. Indirect evidence indicates that 25 μg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly may be more effective and as safe as the recommended 6-hourly vaginal regimen. This evidence could inform clinical decisions in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings.

Exploring the use and impact of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: where to from here?

OBJECTIVES

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing, maintaining, and disseminating living guidelines and decision support tools (clinical flowcharts) for the care of people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since 2020. Living guidelines, a form of living evidence, are a relatively new approach; hence, more work is required to determine how to optimize their use to inform practice, policy, and decision-making and to explore implementation, uptake, and impact implications. An update of an earlier impact evaluation was conducted to understand sustained awareness and use of the guidelines; the factors that facilitate the widespread adoption of the guidelines and to explore the perceived strengths and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods impact evaluation was conducted. Surveys collected both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Participants included Australian healthcare practitioners providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and people involved in policy-making. Data were collected on awareness, use, impact, strengths, and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines and flow charts.

RESULTS

A total of 148 participants completed the survey and 21 people were interviewed between January and March 2022. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and more than 75% of participants reported that the guidelines were used within their workplace. Participants described the Taskforce website and guidelines as trustworthy, valuable, and reliable sources of up-to-date evidence-based information. The evaluation highlighted the varied ways the guidelines were being used across a range of settings and the diverse impacts they have from those at a clinical level to impacts at a policy level. Barriers to and enablers of impact and uptake of the guideline were explored.

CONCLUSION

This evaluation highlights the value of living guidelines during a pandemic when the evidence base is rapidly changing and expanding. It presents useful understanding of the ways clinicians and others use living evidence to inform their clinical practice and decision-making and the diverse impacts the guidelines are having around Australia.

Barriers to and facilitators of living guidelines use in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Living guidelines provide reliable, ongoing evidence surveillance and regularly updated recommendations for healthcare decision-making. As a relatively new concept, most of the initial application of living approaches has been undertaken in high-income countries. However, in this scoping review, we looked at what is currently known about how living guidelines were developed, used and applied in low-income and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Searches for published literature were conducted in Medline, Global Health, Cochrane Library and Embase. Grey literature was identified using Google Scholar and the WHO website. In addition, the reference lists of included studies were checked for missing studies. Studies were included if they described or reflected on the development, application or utility of living guideline approaches for low-income and middle-income countries.

RESULTS

After a full-text review, 21 studies were included in the review, reporting on the development and application of living recommendations in low-income and middle-income countries. Most studies reported living guideline activities conducted by the WHO (15, 71.4%), followed by China (4, 19%), Chile (1, 4.8%) and Lebanon (1, 4.8%). All studies based on WHO reports relate to living COVID-19 management guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies in this review were WHO-reported studies focusing solely on COVID-19 disease treatment living guidelines. However, there was no clear explanation of how living guidelines were used nor information on the prospects for and obstacles to the implementation of living guidelines in low-income and middle-income countries.

Expert consensus on novel medicines to prevent preterm birth and manage preterm labour: Target product profiles

OBJECTIVE

To develop target product profiles (TPPs) for new medicines for preterm birth prevention and preterm labour management that address the real-world need of women and healthcare providers, informed by views and agreement amongst globally diverse stakeholders.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

SETTING

Global (with a focus on low- and middle-income countries, LMICs).

SAMPLE

Global stakeholders with diverse expertise in preterm labour/birth and drug development.

METHODS

Following an initial literature review, diverse stakeholders were invited to participate in an online international survey and in-depth interviews. The level of stakeholder agreement with TPPs was assessed, and findings from interviews were synthesised to inform the final TPPs.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Level of stakeholder agreement on the minimum and preferred requirements for preterm labour/birth medicines.

RESULTS

We performed 21 interviews. Interview participants demonstrated strong agreement on room temperature stability, no additional drug-specific clinical monitoring, and affordability in LMICs being the minimal acceptable requirements. Points of discussion were raised around the target population. Survey respondents included clinicians, researchers, funding agency staff, international public organisation staff, programme implementers, policymakers, representatives of consumer advocacy organisations and other relevant stakeholders from maternal health systems. Survey results indicated strong agreement amongst stakeholders, with only one variable in each TPP not reaching consensus (i.e. 25% disagree or strongly disagree).

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong consensus within the preterm labour/birth community on the characteristics that new medicines for preterm birth prevention and preterm labour management must achieve. These TPPs provide necessary guidance to evaluate new candidates and their potential for implementation in a range of settings.

The use of network meta-analysis in updating WHO living maternal and perinatal health recommendations

Drawing on two recent examples of WHO living guidelines in maternal and perinatal health, this paper elucidates a pragmatic, stepwise approach to using network meta-analysis (NMA) in guideline development in the presence of multiple treatment options. NMA has important advantages. These include the ability to compare multiple interventions in a single coherent analysis, provide direct estimates of the relative effects of all available interventions, infer indirect effect estimates for interventions not directly compared and generate rankings of the available treatment options. It can be difficult to harness these advantages in the face of a lack of current guidance on using NMA evidence in guideline development, with several challenges emerging. Challenges include the choice of conceptual approach, the volume and complexity of the evidence, the contribution of treatment rankings, and the fact that the preferable treatment is not always obvious. This paper describes a layered approach to resolving these challenges, which supports systematic guideline decision-making and development of trustworthy clinical guidelines when multiple treatment options are available.

Antenatal corticosteroids in specific groups at risk of preterm birth: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to synthesise available evidence on the efficacy of antenatal corticosteroid (ACS) therapy among women at risk of imminent preterm birth with pregestational/gestational diabetes, chorioamnionitis or fetal growth restriction (FGR), or planned caesarean section (CS) in the late preterm period.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus was conducted for all comparative randomised or non-randomised interventional studies in the four subpopulations on 6 June 2021. Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomised Studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool were used to assess the risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool assessed the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies involving 5018 pregnant women and 10 819 neonates were included. Data on women with diabetes were limited, and evidence on women undergoing planned CS was inconclusive. ACS use was associated with possibly reduced odds of neonatal death (pooled OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.85, low certainty), intraventricular haemorrhage (pooled OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.72, low certainty) and respiratory distress syndrome (pooled OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.77, low certainty) in women with chorioamnionitis. Among women with FGR, the rates of surfactant use (pooled OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.62, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (pooled OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.66, moderate certainty) and oxygen therapy (pooled OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.77, moderate certainty) were probably reduced; however, the rate of hypoglycaemia probably increased (pooled OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.27 to 3.32, moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of evidence on ACS for women who have diabetes. ACS therapy may have benefits in women with chorioamnionitis and is probably beneficial in FGR. There is limited direct trial evidence on ACS efficacy in women undergoing planned CS in the late preterm period, though the totality of evidence suggests it is probably beneficial.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021267816.

[Concepts to support dynamic updating processes of guidelines and their practical implementation-Systematic literature review]

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG), which are crucial for evidence-based healthcare, should be kept up to date, especially on topics where emerging evidence could modify one of the recommendations with implications for the healthcare service; however, an updating process, which is practicable for guideline developers as well as users represents a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides an overview of the currently discussed methodological approaches for the dynamic updating of guidelines and systematic reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

As part of a scoping review, a literature search was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE (via Ovid), Scopus, Epistemonikos, medRxiv, as well as in study and guideline registers. Concepts on the dynamic updating of guidelines and systematic reviews or dynamically updated guidelines and systematic reviews or their protocols published in English or German were included.

RESULTS

The publications included most frequently described the following main processes that must be adapted in dynamic updating processes 1) the establishment of continuously working guideline groups, 2) networking between guidelines, 3) the formulation and application of prioritization criteria, 4) the adaptation of the systematic literature search and 5) the use of software tools for increased efficiency and digitalization of the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The transformation to living guidelines requires a change in the needs for temporal, personnel and structural resources. The digitalization of guidelines and the use of software to increase efficiency are necessary instruments, but alone do not guarantee the realization of living guidelines. A process in which dissemination and implementation must also be integrated is necessary. Standardized best practice recommendations on the updating process are still lacking.

Economic evaluations of maternal health interventions: a scoping review

Background   Evidence on the affordability and cost-effectiveness of interventions is critical to decision-making for clinical practice guidelines and development of national health policies. This study aimed to develop a repository of primary economic evaluations to support global maternal health guideline development and provide insights into the body of research conducted in this field. Methods   A scoping review was conducted to identify and map available economic evaluations of maternal health interventions. We searched six databases (NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo) on 20 November 2020 with no date, setting or language restrictions. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. Included studies were categorised by subpopulation of women, level of care, intervention type, mechanism, and period, economic evaluation type and perspective, and whether the intervention is currently recommended by the World Health Organization. Frequency analysis was used to determine prevalence of parameters. Results   In total 923 studies conducted in 72 countries were included. Most studies were conducted in high-income country settings (71.8%). Over half pertained to a general population of pregnant women, with the remainder focused on specific subgroups, such as women with preterm birth (6.2%) or those undergoing caesarean section (5.5%). The most common interventions of interest related to non-obstetric infections (23.9%), labour and childbirth care (17.0%), and obstetric complications (15.7%). Few studies addressed the major causes of maternal deaths globally. Over a third (36.5%) of studies were cost-utility analyses, 1.4% were cost-benefit analyses and the remainder were cost-effectiveness analyses. Conclusions   This review provides a navigable, consolidated resource of economic evaluations in maternal health. We identified a clear evidence gap regarding economic evaluations of maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries. Future economic research should focus on interventions to address major drivers of maternal morbidity and mortality in these settings.

Creating implementable clinical practice guidelines: the 2020 Focused Updates to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Asthma Management Guidelines

BACKGROUND

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group provides the first new clinical practice recommendations from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) since the previous 2007 asthma management guidelines. Guideline implementability was a high priority for the expert panel, and many approaches were undertaken to enhance the implementability of this clinical guideline update. Within the report, specific implementation guidance sections provide expanded summaries for each recommendation to quickly assist users. The implementation guidance incorporates findings from NHLBI-sponsored focus groups conducted with people who have asthma, caregivers, and health care providers. The findings were used to identify the types of information and tools that individuals with asthma, their caregivers, and their health care providers would find most helpful; ensure that the new asthma guidelines reflect the voices of individuals with asthma and their caregivers; and identify potential barriers to uptake by individuals with asthma and their caregivers. The expert panel used a GRADE-based approach to develop evidence-to-decision tables that provided a framework for assessing the evidence and consideration of a range of contextual factors that influenced the recommendations such as desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, values, balance of effects, acceptability, feasibility, and equity. To facilitate uptake in clinical care workflow, selected recommendations were converted into structured, computer-based clinical decision support artifacts, and the new recommendations were integrated into existing treatment tables used in the 2007 asthma management guidelines, with which many users are familiar. A comprehensive approach to improve guidelines dissemination and implementation included scientific publications, patient materials, media activities, stakeholder engagement, and professional education.

CONCLUSION

We developed evidence-based clinical practice guideline updates for asthma management focused on six topic areas. The guideline development processes and implementation and dissemination activities undertaken sought to enhance implementability by focusing on intrinsic factors as described by Kastner, Gagliardi, and others to produce usable, adoptable, and adaptable guidelines. Enhanced collaboration during guideline development between authors, informaticists, and implementation scientists may facilitate the development of tools that support the application of recommendations to further improve implementability.

Tocolytic Therapy Inhibiting Preterm Birth in High-Risk Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review aimed to identify the benefits and possible harms of tocolytic therapy for preterm labour management in the context of pregnant women with extremely preterm birth, multiple gestations, or growth-restricted foetuses. A comprehensive search using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and the WHO Global Index Medicus databases was conducted from 10 to 15 July 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies that assessed the effects of tocolysis compared with placebo or no treatment. We found 744 reports and, finally, nine studies (three randomized controlled trials and six cohort studies) pertaining to women with <28 weeks of gestation were included. No eligible studies were identified among women with a multiple pregnancy or a growth-restricted foetus. A meta-analysis of the trial data showed that there were no clear differences in perinatal death nor for a delay in birth. Non-randomized evidence showed that tocolysis delayed birth by 7 days, though there was no clear difference for preterm birth. In summary, it remains unclear whether tocolytic therapy for inhibiting preterm labour is beneficial for these subgroups of women and their newborns. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials and observational studies are needed to address the lack of evidence regarding tocolytic agents in these populations.

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.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines

OBJECTIVES

This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members.

RESULTS

We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored.

CONCLUSION

The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis.

RESULTS

One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together.

CONCLUSION

Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.

An evaluation of global Chikungunya clinical management guidelines: A systematic review

Background

Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) has expanded its geographical reach in recent decades and is an emerging global health threat. CHIKV can cause significant morbidity and lead to chronic, debilitating arthritis/arthralgia in up to 40% of infected individuals. Prevention, early identification, and clinical management are key for improving outcomes. The aim of this review is to evaluate the quality, availability, inclusivity, and scope of evidence-based clinical management guidelines (CMG) for CHIKV globally.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review. Six databases were searched from Jan 1, 1989, to 14 Oct 2021 and grey literature until Sept 16, 2021, for CHIKV guidelines providing supportive care and treatment recommendations. Quality was assessed using the appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool. Findings are presented in a narrative synthesis. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020167361.

Findings

28 CMGs were included; 54% (15/28) were produced more than 5 years ago, and most were of low-quality (median score 2 out of 7 (range 1-7)). There were variations in the CMGs' guidance on the management of different at-risk populations, long-term sequelae, and the prevention of disease transmission. While 54% (15/28) of CMGs recommended hospitalisation for severe cases, only 39% (11/28) provided guidance for severe disease management. Further, 46% (13/28) advocated for steroids in the chronic phase, but 18% (5/28) advised against its use.

Interpretation

There was a lack of high-quality CMGs that provided supportive care and treatment guidance, which may impact patient care and outcomes. It is essential that existing guidelines are updated and adapted to provide detailed evidence-based treatment guidelines for different at-risk populations. This study also highlights a need for more research into the management of the acute and chronic phases of CHIKV infection to inform evidence-based care.

Funding

The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Wellcome Trust [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135].

Target product profiles for novel medicines to prevent and treat preeclampsia: An expert consensus

BACKGROUND

Preeclampsia and eclampsia are a leading cause of global maternal and newborn mortality. Currently, there are few effective medicines that can prevent or treat preeclampsia. Target Product Profiles (TPPs) are important tools for driving new product development by specifying upfront the characteristics that new products should take. Considering the lack of investment and innovation around new medicines for obstetric conditions, we aimed to develop two new TPPs for medicines to prevent and treat preeclampsia.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a multi-methods approach comprised of a literature review, stakeholder interviews, online survey, and public consultation. Following an initial literature review, diverse stakeholders (clinical practice, research, academia, international organizations, funders, consumer representatives) were invited for in-depth interviews and an online international survey, as well as public consultation on draft TPPs. The level of stakeholder agreement with TPPs was assessed, and findings from interviews were synthesised to inform the final TPPs. We performed 23 stakeholder interviews and received 46 survey responses. A high level of agreement was observed in survey results, with 89% of TPP variables reaching consensus (75% agree or strongly agree). Points of discussion were raised around the target population for preeclampsia prevention and treatment, as well as the acceptability of cold-chain storage and routes of administration.

CONCLUSION

There is consensus within the maternal health research community on the parameters that new medicines for preeclampsia prevention and treatment must achieve to meet real-world health needs. These TPPs provide necessary guidance to spur interest, innovation and investment in the development of new medicines to prevent and treat preeclampsia.

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved.

METHODS

We adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence.

RESULTS

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities.

A Living Database of HIV Implementation Research (LIVE Project): Protocol for Rapid Living Reviews

BACKGROUND

HIV implementation research evolves rapidly and is often complex and poorly characterized, which makes the synthesis of data on HIV implementation strategies inherently difficult. This is further compromised by prolonged data abstraction processes due to variable interventions, outcomes, and context, and delays in the publication of review findings; this can all result in outdated and irrelevant systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE

The LIVE project (A Living Database of HIV Implementation Research) aims to overcome these challenges by applying an implementation science lens to the conduct of rapid living systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform HIV service delivery priorities and guideline development.

METHODS

The LIVE project will generate a series of living systematic reviews exploring implementation strategies for improving HIV cascade outcomes (HIV infection, HIV diagnosis, linkage and retention in HIV care, viral suppression, and mortality). We will search Embase and MEDLINE as well databases specific to review questions for studies conducted after 2004 using predefined search terms to identify studies conducted in any age group or setting, and using implementation strategies that target policy makers, society, health organizations, health workers, and beneficiaries of care and their families. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies will be included to ensure reviews include pragmatic data. In addition to assessments of methodological quality, features of the implementation strategies, relevance for implementation, and evidence quality will be determined using recognized frameworks. After initial publication, knowledge gaps will be identified, and review questions and search strategies revised to address ongoing critical areas of inquiry. Updated searches will be conducted every 6 months, with subsequent ongoing screening, data abstraction, and revision of meta-analyses.

RESULTS

As of July 2022, five reviews are at various stages of development within the LIVE project. Three systematic reviews are underway and living review processes are in development for two reviews with estimated completion over the next 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This project and resulting systematic reviews will provide critical insights for HIV service delivery to inform international guideline development.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/37070.

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4.

RESULTS

A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice.

CONCLUSION

Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

Factors affecting the use of antibiotics and antiseptics to prevent maternal infection at birth: A global mixed-methods systematic review

Background

Over 10% of maternal deaths annually are due to sepsis. Prophylactic antibiotics and antiseptic agents are critical interventions to prevent maternal peripartum infections. We conducted a mixed-method systematic review to better understand factors affecting the use of prophylactic antibiotics and antiseptic agents to prevent peripartum infections.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Emcare, CINAHL, Global Health, Global Index Medicus, and Maternity and Infant Care for studies published between 1 January 1990 and 27 May 2022. We included primary qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that focused on women, families, and healthcare providers’ perceptions and experiences of prophylactic antibiotic and antiseptics during labour and birth in health facilities. There were no language restrictions. We used a thematic synthesis approach for qualitative evidence and GRADE-CERQual approach for assessing confidence in these review findings. Quantitative study results were mapped to the qualitative findings and reported narratively.

Results

We included 19 studies (5 qualitative, 12 quantitative and 2 mixed-methods studies), 16 relating to antibiotics, 2 to antiseptic use, and 1 study to both antibiotic and antiseptic use. Most related to providers’ perspectives and were conducted in high-income countries. Key themes on factors affecting antibiotic use were providers’ beliefs about benefits and harms, perceptions of women’s risk of infection, regimen preferences and clinical decision-making processes. Studies on antiseptic use explored women’s perceptions of vaginal cleansing, and provider’s beliefs about benefits and the usefulness of guidelines.

Conclusion

We identified a range of factors affecting how providers use prophylactic antibiotics at birth, which can undermine implementation of clinical guidelines. There were insufficient data for low-resource settings, women’s perspectives, and regarding use of antiseptics, highlighting the need for further research in these areas. Implications for practice include that interventions to improve prophylactic antibiotic use should take account of local environments and perceived infection risk and ensure contextually relevant guidance.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care

BACKGROUND

Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care.

DESIGN

First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders.

SETTING

International.

PARTICIPANTS

Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication.

LIMITATION

This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented.

CONCLUSION

The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

World Health Organization and knowledge translation in maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition

The World Health Organization (WHO) has a mandate to promote maternal and child health and welfare through support to governments in the form of technical assistance, standards, epidemiological and statistical services, promoting teaching and training of healthcare professionals and providing direct aid in emergencies. The Strategic and Technical Advisory Group of Experts (STAGE) for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition (MNCAHN) was established in 2020 to advise the Director-General of WHO on issues relating to MNCAHN. STAGE comprises individuals from multiple low-income and middle-income and high-income countries, has representatives from many professional disciplines and with diverse experience and interests.Progress in MNCAHN requires improvements in quality of services, equity of access and the evolution of services as technical guidance, community needs and epidemiology changes. Knowledge translation of WHO guidance and other guidelines is an important part of this. Countries need effective and responsive structures for adaptation and implementation of evidence-based interventions, strategies to improve guideline uptake, education and training and mechanisms to monitor quality and safety. This paper summarises STAGE's recommendations on how to improve knowledge translation in MNCAHN. They include support for national and regional technical advisory groups and subnational committees that coordinate maternal and child health; support for national plans for MNCAHN and their implementation and monitoring; the production of a small number of consolidated MNCAHN guidelines to promote integrated and holistic care; education and quality improvement strategies to support guidelines uptake; monitoring of gaps in knowledge translation and operational research in MNCAHN.

Cost-effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids and tocolytic agents in the management of preterm birth: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is a leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity, and imposes high health and societal costs. Antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) to accelerate fetal lung maturation are commonly used in conjunction with tocolytics for arresting preterm labour in women at risk of imminent preterm birth.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of ACS and/or tocolytics as part of preterm birth management. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase (December 2021), as well as a maternal health economic evidence repository collated from NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo, with no date cutoff. Eligible studies were economic evaluations of ACS and/or tocolytics for preterm birth. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data on cost-effectiveness and assessed study quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

FINDINGS

35 studies were included: 11 studies on ACS, eight on tocolytics to facilitate ACS administration, 12 on acute and maintenance tocolysis, and four studies on a combination of ACS and tocolytics. ACS was cost-effective prior to 34 weeks' gestation, but economic evidence on ACS use at 34-<37 weeks was conflicting. No single tocolytic was identified as the most cost-effective. Studies disagreed on whether ACS and tocolytic in combination were cost-saving when compared to no intervention.

INTERPRETATION

ACS use prior to 34 weeks' gestation appears cost-effective. Further studies are required to identify what (if any) tocolytic option is most cost-effective for facilitating ACS administration, and the economic consequences of ACS use in the late preterm period.

FUNDING

UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by WHO.

Update March 2022: management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

Since the identification of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected more than 410 million people worldwide and killed almost 6 million [1, 2]. The predecessors of COVID-19, i.e. the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) outbreaks, had been relatively self-limiting, preventing clinicians and researchers from establishing evidence-based specific therapeutic strategies [3]. Conversely, COVID-19 rapidly proved to be extremely fast spreading, which led stakeholders to encourage, guide, build or fund multidirectional therapeutic research strategies based on both repurposing and development of new agents [4–8]. In parallel, considerable efforts were directed at describing the disease and understanding the underlying mechanisms [9–13]. As a result, there has been a huge generation of evidence, as highlighted by the impressive number of COVID-19 publications (more than 200 000 since the end of 2019). As a consequence, it proved rapidly impossible for any clinician, researcher or decision-maker to gather and analyse all the corresponding literature to derive appropriate guidance [14]. The first step of such a process is to select the relevant high-quality research that can be used to answer the question(s) of interest [15]. Even if limiting the search to clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, almost 4000 papers appear in the PubMed database, as of mid-February 2022. In June and July 2020, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) released early guidance on several aspects of COVID-19 management (i.e. rehabilitation, palliative care and acute management); at that time, direct specific evidence was sparse or absent [16–18]. Simultaneously, the ERS launched a living guideline on the management of COVID-19. The format was that of a “short” guideline, as per ERS standards [19, 20], in that the purpose was to release the first iteration within 12 months. However, the number of PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions to be addressed (n=12) already exceeded markedly what the ERS considers as being feasible during such a short timeframe (i.e. n=1–2), which was a direct consequence of the high number of unanswered issues in the field of acute COVID-19 management, all corresponding to outstanding clinical needs. The first version of these guidelines was published in March 2021 and addressed the following potential therapeutic options: corticosteroids, interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonists, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and both combined, colchicine, lopinavir-ritonavir, remdesivir, interferon-β, anticoagulation and non-invasive ventilatory support [6, 21]. An update of the mortality meta-analyses for corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β was published in December 2021 [22].

The ERS COVID-19 guidelines make recommendations for corticosteroids, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, baricitinib, anticoagulation and non-invasive respiratory support for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 https://bit.ly/3QgHH7U

How frequently should "living" guidelines be updated? Insights from the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines

Background

“Living guidelines” are guidelines which are continually kept up to date as new evidence emerges. Living guideline methods are evolving. The aim of this study was to determine how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken for the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

Methods

Members of the Living Stroke Guidelines Development Group were invited to complete an online survey. Participants nominated one or more recommendation topics from the Living Stroke Guidelines with which they had been involved and answered questions about that topic, assessing whether it met criteria for living evidence synthesis, and how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken and why. For each topic we also determined how many studies had been assessed and included, and whether recommendations had been changed.

Results

Fifty-seven assessments were received from 33 respondents, covering half of the 88 guideline topic areas. Nearly all assessments (49, 86%) were that the continual updating process should be maintained. Only three assessments (5%) deemed that searches should be conducted monthly; 3-monthly (14, 25%), 6-monthly (13, 23%) and yearly (17, 30%) searches were far more frequently recommended. Rarely (9, 16%) were topics deemed to meet all three criteria for living review. The vast majority of assessments (45, 79%) deemed the topic a priority for decision-making. Nearly half indicated that there was uncertainty in the available evidence or that new evidence was likely to be available soon.

Since 2017, all but four of the assessed topic areas have had additional studies included in the evidence summary. For eight topics, there have been changes in recommendations, and revisions are underway for an additional six topics.

Clinical importance was the most common reason given for why continual evidence surveillance should be undertaken. Workload for reviewers was a concern, particularly for topics where there is a steady flow of publication of small trials.

Conclusions

Our study found that participants felt that the vast majority of topics assessed in the Living Stroke Guidelines should be continually updated. However, only a fifth of topic areas were assessed as conclusively meeting all three criteria for living review, and the definition of “continual” differed widely. This work has informed decisions about search frequency for the Living Stroke Guidelines and form the basis of further research on methods for frequent updating of guidelines.

How do Healthcare Workers 'Do' Guidelines? Exploring How Policy Decisions Impacted UK Healthcare Workers During the First Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic

We describe how COVID-19-related policy decisions and guidelines impacted healthcare workers (HCWs) during the UK's first COVID-19 pandemic phase. Guidelines in healthcare aim to streamline processes, improve quality and manage risk. However, we argue that during this time the guidelines we studied often fell short of these goals in practice. We analysed 74 remote interviews with 14 UK HCWs over 6 months (February-August 2020). Reframing guidelines through Mol's lens of 'enactment', we reveal embodied, relational and material impacts that some guidelines had for HCWs. Beyond guideline 'adherence', we show that enacting guidelines is an ongoing, complex process of negotiating and balancing multilevel tensions. Overall, guidelines: (1) were inconsistently communicated; (2) did not sufficiently accommodate contextual considerations; and (3) were at times in tension with HCWs' values. Healthcare policymakers should produce more agile, acceptable guidelines that frontline HCWs can enact in ways which make sense and are effective in their contexts.

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation

Introduction

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project.

Methods

The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data.

Results

An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified.

Conclusions

In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Standards Required for the Development of CDC Evidence-Based Guidelines

CDC is the nation’s premier health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency. As such, CDC is an important source of public health and clinical guidelines. If CDC guidelines are to be trusted by partners and the public, they must be clear, valid, and reliable. Methods and processes used in CDC guideline development should follow universally accepted standards. This report describes the standards required by CDC for the development of evidence-based guidelines. These standards cover topics such as guideline scoping, soliciting external input, summarizing evidence, and crafting recommendations. Following these standards can help minimize bias and enhance the quality and consistency of CDC guidelines.

First and second trimester ultrasound in pregnancy: A systematic review and metasynthesis of the views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends one ultrasound scan before 24 weeks gestation as part of routine antenatal care (WHO 2016). We explored influences on provision and uptake through views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers.

Methods

We undertook a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021230926). We derived summaries of findings and overarching themes using metasynthesis methods. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocIndex, LILACS, and AIM (Nov 25th 2020) for qualitative studies reporting views and experiences of routine ultrasound provision to 24 weeks gestation, with no language or date restriction. After quality assessment, data were logged and analysed in Excel. We assessed confidence in the findings using Grade-CERQual.

Findings

From 7076 hits, we included 80 papers (1994–2020, 23 countries, 16 LICs/MICs, over 1500 participants). We identified 17 review findings, (moderate or high confidence: 14/17), and four themes: sociocultural influences and expectations; the power of visual technology; joy and devastation: consequences of ultrasound findings; the significance of relationship in the ultrasound encounter. Providing or receiving ultrasound was positive for most, reportedly increasing parental-fetal engagement. However, abnormal findings were often shocking. Some reported changing future reproductive decisions after equivocal results, even when the eventual diagnosis was positive. Attitudes and behaviours of sonographers influenced service user experience. Ultrasound providers expressed concern about making mistakes, recognising their need for education, training, and adequate time with women. Ultrasound sex determination influenced female feticide in some contexts, in others, termination was not socially acceptable. Overuse was noted to reduce clinical antenatal skills as well as the use and uptake of other forms of antenatal care. These factors influenced utility and equity of ultrasound in some settings.

Conclusion

Though antenatal ultrasound was largely seen as positive, long-term adverse psychological and reproductive consequences were reported for some. Gender inequity may be reinforced by female feticide following ultrasound in some contexts. Provider attitudes and behaviours, time to engage fully with service users, social norms, access to follow up, and the potential for overuse all need to be considered.

Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement.

RESULTS

A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored.

CONCLUSIONS

As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

Feasibility of national living guideline methods: the Australian Stroke Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Maintaining clinical guideline currency has been one challenge to traditional guideline development. This paper describes the methods used to maintain a large national guideline for stroke management.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines are developed to meet Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) standards. Monthly surveillance is conducted for new systematic reviews and randomised controlled studies. Included studies undergo data extraction followed by preparation of updated evidence-to-decision frameworks which are used to inform updates, or development of new recommendations. Small writing groups made up of clinical experts and those with lived experience review and agree on changes, which are finally reviewed by a multidisciplinary Guidelines Steering Group. Draft changes are developed and published using the online MAGICapp platform, with dissemination and promotion via traditional methods as well as social media.

RESULTS

Each month approximately 350 abstracts are considered, covering 96 clinical topics and taking on average 16 hours to review. There have been four major guideline updates covering 34 new and updated recommendations.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to use 'living' methods to maintain the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Further work is now needed to understand the impact of living guidelines.

Accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of COVID-19 clinical management guidelines early in the pandemic: a global survey

Background: With a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked at-risk populations, and varied in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. This study aimed to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs in different settings. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide was conducted from 15th June to 20th July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs, and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs were analysed by geographic location. Results: 76 clinicians from 27 countries responded: 82% from high-income countries, 17% from lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Most respondents reported access to COVID-19 CMGs and confidence in their implementation. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs, reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatment and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women, and 50% for older adults (>65 years). Identified themes were for CMGs to include recommendations for at-risk populations and settings, include supportive care guidance, and be updated as evidence emerges, and for clinicians to have training and access to recommended treatments to support implementation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight important gaps in COVID-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting at-risk populations and lower resourced settings. This study identifies an urgent need for an improved CMG development framework that is inclusive and adaptable to emerging evidence and considers contextual implementation support, to improve access to evidence-based care globally.

Systematic review of diabetic eye disease practice guidelines: more applicability, transparency and development rigor are needed

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality of diabetic eye disease clinical practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic search of diabetic eye disease guidelines was conducted on six online databases and guideline repositories. Four reviewers independently rated quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Aggregate scores (%) for six domains and overall quality assessment were calculated. A "good quality" guideline was one with ≥60% score for "rigor of development" and in at least two other domains.

RESULTS

Eighteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 were evidence-based guidelines (involved systematic search and grading of evidence). The median scores (interquartile range (IQR)) for "scope and purpose," "stakeholder involvement," "rigor of development," "clarity of presentation," "applicability" and "editorial independence" were 73.6% (54.2%-80.6%), 48.6% (29.2%-71.5%), 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), 86.6% (76.7%-94.4%), 28.6% (18.0%-37.8%) and 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), respectively. The median overall score (out of 7) of all guidelines was 5.1 (IQR: 3.7-5.8). Evidence-based guidelines scored significantly higher compared to expert-consensus guidelines. Half (n = 9) of the guidelines (all evidence-based) were of "good quality."

CONCLUSION

A wide variation in methodological quality exists among diabetic eyecare guidelines, with nine demonstrating "good quality." Future iterations of guidelines could improve by appropriately engaging stakeholders, following a rigorous development process, including support for application in clinical practice and ensuring editorial transparency.

The UpPriority tool supported prioritization processes for updating clinical guideline questions

OBJECTIVE

We aim to 1) use the UpPriority tool to identify which clinical questions (CQs) within the clinical guidelines (CGs) need to be prioritized for updating and 2) assess the implementation of the tool in a real-world set of CGs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically assessed CQs from a sample of CGs developed in the Spanish National Health System CG program. We applied the UpPriority tool to each CG using a step-by-step process that included: 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group, 2) mapping of the original CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4) assessment of CQ's priority according to six items, 5) calculation and ranking of priority scores, 6) decision of prioritized CQs for updating, and 7) development of the priority report. We assessed the tool implementation process (appraisers' experience when using the tool) and the inter-observer reliability of the tool, and we provided suggestions for improvement.

RESULTS

We included four CGs with a total of 107 CQs on the following topics: chronic heart failure (10 CQs), inherited retinal dystrophies (39 CQs), menopause (20 CQs), and open-angle glaucoma (38 CQs). We included a total of 30 participants, most of them clinicians that were members of the original CG development groups. CQs were classified in three groups: 1) high priority (CQs prioritized for updating [16/107; 15.0%]), 2) medium priority (CQs that could be prioritized for updating [47/107; 43.9%]), and low priority (CQs that were not prioritized for updating [44/107; 41.1%]). The mean time each appraiser needed to assess the CQs with the tool was 3.8 hours (range 0.5 to 10). Agreement among the appraisers varied among the CGs. Appraisers considered that the tool was useful. We suggest some areas for consideration when using the tool including: 1) identification of key appraisers, 2) customization of training materials, 3) establishment of priority thresholds, and 4) provision of methodological support.

CONCLUSION

The UpPriority is a useful tool to identify which CQs within a CG need to be prioritized for update in a real-world scenario. Recruitment and training of topic experts are the main challenges when using the tool.

Towards living guidelines on cardiorenal outcomes in diabetes: A pilot project of the Taskforce of the Guideline Workshop 2020

In June 2020, the Taskforce of the Guideline Workshop 2019 convened via teleconferencing to initiate a pilot project that demonstrates the various processes and considerations involved in developing high-quality, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the medical management of individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its associated comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The goal of the pilot project was to create evidence-based guidelines for use of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I) when managing very high risk T2D patients, evidenced by the presence of both CVD and CKD. For this purpose the Taskforce represented a guideline panel and made use of synthesized evidence from an ongoing BMJ Rapid Recommendations project on SGLT2-I and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Results from the Taskforce pilot project demonstrated the value, feasibility and utility of using a step-wise approach to identifying and grading evidence and then developing actionable recommendations for utilizing SGLT2-I in this at-risk T2D population. This report describes the various steps involved in the process and explains how it can be utilized to rapidly develop recommendations in a format that is easy to use and can be quickly updated as new evidence becomes available, also within the emerging concept of living guidelines.

Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.

Knowledge translation for the everyday optometrist

A gap exists between best evidence and actual clinical care provided to patients. The advent of evidence-based practice was meant to address this gap by providing practitioners with a method to search, evaluate and incorporate evidence into practice. However, the gap continues to exist. The health research fields of knowledge translation and implementation science have evolved over the last few decades to assist practitioners in embedding research findings and best evidence into routine practice. Knowledge translation seeks to improve public health outcomes by facilitating the movement of best evidence from the bench to clinical practice. Implementation science is the study of methods to integrate research findings and evidence-based practice into routine practice. This literature review aims to revisit the concepts of evidence-based practice and to introduce knowledge translation and implementation science by exploring their roles and influences in the delivery of appropriate glaucoma care by optometrists.

Quality of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetic retinopathy

Clinical relevance: Understanding the quality of the commonly used clinical practice guidelines can help busy clinicians in selecting appropriate guidelines for evidence-based eye care for people with diabetes.Background: The National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) clinical practice guideline on diabetic retinopathy management has been widely used locally and internationally for over 10 years. However, the quality of this guideline has never been formally assessed. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the quality of the NHMRC guideline and compare it against other international guidelines.Methods: The 2008 NHMRC and another five established diabetic retinopathy management international guidelines (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, 2017; American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2019; American Optometric Association, 2019; Royal College of Ophthalmologists, UK, 2013, and Canadian Ophthalmologic Society, 2012) were examined using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Scoring by four independent reviewers was aggregated into six domain and overall rating scores. Consistency among the reviewers was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).Results: The AGREE II domain scores for the NHMRC guideline were: scope and purpose 72%, stakeholder involvement 64%, rigour of development 77%, clarity of presentation 96%, applicability 35%, and editorial independence 15%. The NHMRC guideline's overall score (5.3 of 7) was lower than that of most other guidelines. Compared to others, the NHMRC guideline scored well in clarity of presentation and rigour of development, but less well for editorial independence. The NHMRC guideline was the least current and a need to update it was recognised by all reviewers who identified key areas for improvement.Conclusion: The quality of the NHMRC guideline was comparable to most other established international guidelines. Several areas of strengths and weaknesses in this guideline were identified. Future updates should aim to improve transparency in development and applicability in clinical practice.

Removing Unnecessary Medical Barriers to Contraception: Celebrating a Decade of the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, providing recommendations for health care providers on safe use of contraception for people with certain characteristics or medical conditions. Adapted from World Health Organization guidance, the goal of the recommendations is to remove unnecessary medical barriers to contraception. Over the past decade, CDC has updated recommendations based on new evidence, collaborated with national partners to disseminate and implement the guidelines, and conducted provider surveys to assess changes in attitudes and practices around contraception safety and provision. CDC remains committed to supporting evidence-based guidelines for safe use of contraception, as the basis for improving access to contraception and high-quality family planning services, reducing unintended pregnancy, and improving reproductive health in the United States.