UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey

Operationalizing shared decision making in clinical practice

Shared decision-making (SDM) requires a clear-eyed view of evidence certainty, context, and equipoise in clinical care. This paradigm of care builds on the foundational ethical principle of patient autonomy, further leveraging beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice to provide bespoke care in the appropriate clinical setting. When evidence is carefully evaluated together with acceptability and feasibility, equity, cost-effectiveness, resources, and patient preferences, an individualized assessment of the trade-off between possible benefits and harms can optimize patient management. In the setting of a conditional recommendation, it is appropriate to engage in SDM with patient partners, to the extent each patient is willing and able to engage in the SDM process. Three conversations inform SDM and include team talk, option talk, and decision talk with discussion of the plan of care. During these conversations, clear communication strategies that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time sensitive, and provide assessment of absolute (not just relative) risk are important to provide necessary education to patient partners. Follow-up is key to ensure that decisions lead to effective treatment. Through this process, it is necessary to minimize cognitive overload and promote a minimally disruptive medicine approach. The acronym "HOW" promotes a holistic appraisal of evidence in context, open-minded teamwork with patients and families, and willingness to be a listening presence while serving as a partner and guide and appreciating the multidimensional and unique nature of each individual. SDM is and will continue to remain a cornerstone of appropriate medical care in settings of clinical equipoise.

A systematic review and quality appraisal of guidelines and recommendations for home enteral tube feeding in adults

Home Enteral Tube Feeding (HETF) is a viable option for people within primary care settings when oral intake is insufficient to meet nutritional needs. As HETF is not a risk-free therapy, guidelines exist to enable its safe provision. This review aims to summarise existing guidelines and their recommendations pertaining to the provision of HETF and appraise their methodological quality. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, PRISMA-checklist and a 2019 methodological guide specific to the review of clinical practice guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023456223). Records were sourced from five bibliographical databases (Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Cinahl) and the grey literature (64 websites, seven guideline repositories). The AGREE-II tool was applied to eligible guidelines. The recommendations of guidelines meeting a predetermined threshold score (domain 3 'rigour of development' score >70%) were extracted, grouped, and assessed using the AGREE-REX tool. A total of 2707 records were screened with 15 guidelines meeting eligibility criteria. The median (IQR) overall AGREE-II score (/7) of all guidelines was 3 (3-5) and only 3/15 guidelines achieved a domain 3 score >70%. The median (IQR) overall AGREE-REX score was 33% (26-37%). No recommendation group achieved a domain score above 70%. No guideline or recommendation group was suggested for use without modification. Key limitations included suboptimal stakeholder involvement and implementability, and lack of methodological transparency. Current HETF guidelines inadequately align with methodological standards. This review highlights key areas HETF guideline developers should consider to create more relevant and implementable guidelines.

Targeting Symptom-Specific Networks With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Increasing evidence suggests that the clinical effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation are target dependent. Within any given symptom, precise targeting of specific brain circuits may improve clinical outcomes. This principle can also be extended across symptoms-stimulation of different circuits may lead to different symptom-level outcomes. This may include targeting different symptoms within the same disorder (such as dysphoria vs. anxiety in patients with major depression) or targeting the same symptom across different disorders (such as primary major depression and depression secondary to stroke, traumatic brain injury, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson's disease). Some of these symptom-specific changes may be desirable, while others may be undesirable. This review focuses on the conceptual framework through which symptom-specific target circuits may be identified, tested, and implemented.

Infographic summaries for clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing of the BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Infographics have the potential to enhance knowledge translation and implementation of clinical practice guidelines at the point of care. They can provide a synoptic view of recommendations, their rationale and supporting evidence. They should be understandable and easy to use. Little evaluation of these infographics regarding user experience has taken place. We explored general practitioners' experiences with five selected BMJ Rapid Recommendation infographics suited for primary care.

METHODS

An iterative, qualitative user testing design was applied on two consecutive groups of 10 general practitioners for five selected infographics. The physicians used the infographics before clinical encounters and we performed hybrid think-aloud interviews afterwards. 20 interviews were analysed using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.

RESULTS

Many clinicians reported that the infographics were simple and rewarding to use, time-efficient and easy to understand. They were perceived as innovative and their knowledge basis as trustworthy and supportive for decision-making. The interactive, expandable format was preferred over a static version as general practitioners focused mainly on the core message. Rapid access through the electronic health record was highly desirable. The main issues were about the use of complex scales and terminology. Understanding terminology related to evidence appraisal as well as the interpretation of statistics and unfamiliar scales remained difficult, despite the infographics.

CONCLUSIONS

General practitioners perceive infographics as useful tools for guideline translation and implementation in primary care. They offer information in an enjoyable and user friendly format and are used mainly for rapid, tailored and just in time information retrieval. We recommend future infographic producers to provide information as concise as possible, carefully define the core message and explore ways to enhance the understandability of statistics and difficult concepts related to evidence appraisal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

MP011977.

Canal wall up versus canal wall down mastoidectomy techniques in the pediatric population with cholesteatoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

IMPORTANCE

The optimal surgical management of cholesteatoma remains controversial. Within pediatric otolaryngology, one of the most vital points of contention is the selection of canal wall-up (CWU) versus canal wall-down (CWD) procedures. Pediatric cholesteatoma has high rates of recurrence (16%-54%). In adults, there is evidence that the selection of surgical techniques affects recurrence rates. This has not been shown in children.

OBJECTIVES

1. To systematically review the literature on recurrent and residual cholesteatoma after CWU and CWD in children and perform a meta-analysis of the data. 2. To assess the rates of recurrent and residual cholesteatoma between CWU and CWD techniques in pediatric patients. 3. To assess hearing outcomes by evaluating postoperative differences in the air-bone gap (ABG) between CWU and CWD techniques.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Collaboration was performed from inception to May 1st, 2020, to identify studies that compared CWU and CWD procedures for acquired cholesteatoma in children.

STUDY SELECTION

Search records were screened in duplicate by four reviewers. Inclusion criteria consisted of comparative randomized clinical trials and observational studies assessing outcomes of CWU and CWD techniques in the pediatric population. Studies involving patients with congenital cholesteatoma were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Four reviewers working independently and in duplicate systematically reviewed and extracted study data. Dichotomous variables were analyzed as risk ratios (RR), while continuous variables were compared using weighted mean differences (MD). The risk of bias was assessed using the CLARITY Scale.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes were recurrence, residual disease, air-bone gap (ABG), and air conductive (AC) thresholds.

RESULTS

After screening 1036 publications, 17 retrospective cohort studies were selected. 1333 children were included; the overall mean age was ten years (SD 7.9), and the overall mean follow-up time was 5.9 years (SD 6.6). CWU and CWD techniques were performed in 60% (796) and 40% (537) cases. We did not find differences in cholesteatoma recurrence (RR: 1.50, 95% CI 0.94; 2.40; n = 544; I2 0%; Tau [2]: 0.00), or rates of residual cholesteatoma (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.96; 2.38, n = 506; I2: 0%; Tau [2]: 0.00) in patients who underwent CWU and CWD mastoidectomy. The mean air-bone gap was lower with CWU than CWD (mean difference: 7.60, 95% CI -10.65; -4.54; n = 242; I2: 71%; Tau [2]: 5.98).

CONCLUSION

and relevance: We show similar rates of recurrence and residual disease after either CWU or CWD tympanoplasty. Our results challenge the fundamental principle of CWD surgery as a standard technique, as there is no difference in rates of recurrence and residual disease in CWU and CWD. Moreover, audiometric results support CWU with improved hearing outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020184029.

The use of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis: an evaluation of fidelity and reporting

BACKGROUND

GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) is a methodological approach to systematically and transparently assess how much confidence decision makers can place in individual review findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. The number of reviews applying GRADE-CERQual is rapidly expanding in guideline and other decision-making contexts. The objectives of this evaluation were, firstly, to describe the uptake of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis by review authors and, secondly, to assess both reporting of and fidelity to the approach.

METHODS

The evaluation had two parts. Part 1 was a citation analysis and descriptive overview of the literature citing GRADE-CERQual. Authors worked together to code and chart the citations, first by title and abstract and second by full text. Part 2 was an assessment and analysis of fidelity to, and reporting of, the GRADE-CERQual approach in included reviews. We developed fidelity and reporting questions and answers based on the most recent guidance for GRADE-CERQual and then used NVivo12 to document assessments in a spreadsheet and code full-text PDF articles for any concerns that had been identified. Our assessments were exported to Excel and we applied count formulae to explore patterns in the data. We employed a qualitative content analysis approach in NVivo12 to sub-coding all the data illustrating concerns for each reporting and fidelity criteria.

RESULTS

233 studies have applied the GRADE-CERQual approach, with most (n = 225, 96.5%) in the field of health research. Many studies (n = 97/233, 41.6%) were excluded from full fidelity and reporting assessment because they demonstrated a serious misapplication of GRADE-CERQual, for example interpreting it as a quality appraisal tool for primary studies or reviews. For the remaining studies that applied GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in review findings, the main areas of reporting concern involved terminology, labelling and completeness. Fidelity concerns were identified in more than half of all studies assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

GRADE-CERQual is being used widely within qualitative evidence syntheses and there are common reporting and fidelity issues. Most of these are avoidable and we highlight these as gaps in knowledge and guidance for applying the GRADE-CERQual approach.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

Much health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has been designed to persuade people more than to inform them. For example, messages like "masks save lives" are intended to compel people to wear face masks, not to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to wear a face mask or to understand the justification for a mask mandate. Both persuading people and informing them are reasonable goals for health communication. However, those goals can sometimes be in conflict. In this article, we discuss potential conflicts between seeking to persuade or to inform people, the use of spin to persuade people, the ethics of persuasion, and implications for health communication in the context of the pandemic and generally. Decisions to persuade people rather than enable them to make an informed choice may be justified, but the basis for those decisions should be transparent and the evidence should not be distorted. We suggest nine principles to guide decisions by health authorities about whether to try to persuade people.

Characteristics and quality of clinical practice guidelines addressing acupuncture interventions: a systematic survey of 133 guidelines and 433 acupuncture recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To systematically summarise acupuncture-related Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs)'s clinical and methodological characteristics and critically appraise their methodology quality.

DESIGN

We summarised the characteristics of the guidelines and recommendations and evaluated their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

DATA SOURCES

Nine databases were searched from 1 January 2010 to 20 September 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included the latest version of acupuncture CPGs, which must have used at least one systematic review addressing the benefits and harms of alternative care options to inform acupuncture recommendations.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Reviewers, working in pairs, independently screened and extracted data. When there are statistical differences among types of CPGs, we reported the data by type in the text, but when not, we reported the overall data.

RESULTS

Of the 133 eligible guidelines, musculoskeletal and connective tissue diseases proved the most commonly addressed therapeutic areas. According to the AGREE II instrument, the CPG was moderate quality in the domain of clarity of scope and purpose, clarity of presentation, the rigour of development, stakeholder involvement and low quality in editorial independence, and applicability. The study identified 433 acupuncture-related recommendations; 380 recommended the use of acupuncture, 28 recommended against the use of acupuncture and 25 considered acupuncture but did not make recommendations. Of the 303 recommendations that used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine the strength of recommendations, 152 were weak recommendations, 131 were strong recommendations, of which 104 were supported by low or very low certainty evidence (discordant recommendations).

CONCLUSION

In the past 10 years, a large number of CPGs addressing acupuncture interventions exist. Although these guidelines may be as or more rigorous than many others, considerable room for improvement remains.

Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines.

DESIGN

Empirical analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness).

RESULTS

The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach.

CONCLUSION

Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin at different doses in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

As an oral hypoglycaemic drug that significantly reduces cardiovascular risk, empagliflozin is often used in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the dosage and administration of empagliflozin are still controversial clinically. To determine the most appropriate dose, we performed this network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about empagliflozin from eight databases. We analysed the pharmacodynamics, adverse effects (AEs), and pharmacokinetics of empagliflozin at different doses.

RESULTS

We identified 8264 articles, of which 23 RCTs with 10518 patients were included. Regarding haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG), high-daily doses (10, 25, 50 mg) were significantly better than low doses (1, 2.5, 5 mg). For total AEs, there was a dose-response trend in which safety decreased with increasing doses. According to SUCRA sequencing, the order for lowering HbA1c was 25 > 50 > 10 > 5 > 1 mg, for lowering FPG was 50 > 25 > 10 > 5 > 2.5 > 1 mg and for safety was 1> 5 > 10 > 25> 2.5 > 50 mg. When considering HbA1c, FPG and total AEs, we performed a hierarchical cluster analysis and network meta-analysis to find that 25 mg performed best among different doses, which was more significant after long-term use (≥ 12 weeks). Pharmacokinetic parameters exhibited significant dose-response relationships.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

High-daily doses (10, 25, 50 mg) had better efficacy than low doses (1, 2.5, 5 mg). When considering HbA1c, FPG and total AEs, 25 mg performed best among the different doses in patients with T2DM.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Strength of Recommendation and Quality of Evidence for Recommendations in Current Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines

Background

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) is a systematic approach to grading strength of recommendation (SOR) and quality of evidence (QOE) for guideline recommendations. We aimed to assess the relationship between SOR and QOE in current Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines.

Methods

In this cross-sectional analysis, we analyzed the frequency of SOR-QOE pairings, including discordance (defined as strong SOR based on expert opinion, very low, or low QOE) for GRADEd recommendations in IDSA guidelines published since 2010. Data for each recommendation were extracted on SOR, QOE, the domain of disease management (one or more of diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and other categories), and relevance to drug or nondrug treatment.

Results

Seventeen eligible guidelines provided 1042 unique GRADEd recommendations (n = 237, 711, 76, and 73 pertaining to diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and other domains, respectively; n = 574 and 137 pertaining to drug and nondrug treatment). Overall, the most common SOR was strong (71.8%; n = 748) and the most common QOE was low (48.6%; n = 506). Among all strong recommendations, 47.1% (n = 352) demonstrated discordance with QOE. By domain, strong recommendations were discordant in 36.6%, 51.4%, 29.3%, and 58.1% of recommendations pertaining to diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and other domains, respectively. Similarly, 50.7% and 54.0% of strong recommendations related to drug and nondrug treatment were discordant, respectively. We identified 39.6% of discordant recommendations to be consistent with good practice statements, which are recommended to be labeled as such without formal GRADEd designations of SOR or QOE.

Conclusions

Among all IDSA guideline recommendations with strong SOR, approximately half were discordant with QOE, and this frequency varied across strata of domains of disease management.

Moving towards online rheumatology education in the era of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has unsettled conventional medical education, hastening a switch to digital platforms and open-access publishing. Rheumatology is a fast evolving academic discipline that stands to gain by this switch. Most rheumatology textbooks are now available in digital formats, and these are complemented with live updating educational hubs such as UpToDate and ClinicalKey. Emerging topics of COVID-19 on these proprietary platforms are now freely available to all specialists. Social media channels, particularly Twitter, are becoming major players in the era of COVID-19 by offering online journal clubs, enabling fast dissemination of influential articles, and facilitating interactive education. Indexed rheumatology journals, in turn, aid online education by opening access to recommendations and other materials that are rapidly changing research and practice worldwide. Research peer review additionally offers learning experience to novice and seasoned researchers and authors. Global rheumatology societies have online learning resources, which are changing their format and geographic reach to meet the changing needs in the times of pandemic. While online teaching lacks emotional connections between mentors and mentees, switch to a more interactive format of education and regular contacts may partly solve the issue. Rheumatologists can take the lead in these challenging times and contribute more to online scholarly activities which are aimed to maintain and enrich education. Key Points • Disparities in rheumatology education are likely to be widened during the COVID-19 pandemic. • Barriers to rheumatology education include limited number of instructors and their limited experience in online teaching. • Online textbooks, didactic materials of indexed rheumatology journals, and frequently updated online educational hubs such as UpToDate serve as a foundation of online rheumatology education. • Online rheumatology education is enriched by peer review and social media activities, which are becoming major players in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

American thyroid association guidelines are inconsistent with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations-A meta-epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVES

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) working group has recognized some scenarios in which strong recommendations may be supported by low-quality evidence, the so-called paradigmatic situations. The adherence to these paradigmatic situations by the American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines, however, remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Clinical guidelines from the ATA were retrieved and deemed eligible if created using GRADE or the American College of Physicians (ACP) system. Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, assessed all strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence and judged their alignment with GRADE paradigmatic situations. The study was conducted at KER Unit Mexico.

RESULTS

A total of five clinical guidelines, one using the GRADE and four using the ACP system, were eligible for analysis. We assessed a total of 518 recommendations, of which 355 (69%) were labeled as "strong" and 163 (31%) as "weak". A total of 151 strong recommendations were based on low-quality evidence, of which 36 (24%) were congruent with one of the five GRADE paradigmatic situations, whereas 115 (76%) were not consistent with any paradigmatic situations and should have been categorized as weak (23% [26/115]) or best-practice recommendations (77% [89/115]).

CONCLUSION

ATA clinical guidelines are discordant with GRADE guidance. Future guidelines should carefully evaluate the quality of evidence and recognize its limitations when developing recommendations.

A case study on Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: available treatment options, antibiotic R&D and responsible antibiotic-use strategies

Objectives

This case study addresses: (i) antibiotic treatment options for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB), for both empirical and targeted therapy; (ii) the current status of and priorities for the antibiotic pipeline to ensure access of effective antibiotics for SAB; and (iii) strategies for responsible antibiotic use relevant to the clinical management of SAB.

Methods

Evidence to address the aims was extracted from the following information sources: (i) EUCAST and CLSI recommendations, summaries of product characteristics (SPCs), antibiotic treatment guidelines and the textbook Kucers’ The Use of Antibiotics; (ii) the www.clinicaltrial.gov database; and (iii) quality indicators for responsible antibiotic use.

Results

Current monotherapy treatment options for SAB include only three drug classes (β-lactams, glycopeptides and lipopeptides), of which two also cover MRSA bacteraemia (glycopeptides and lipopeptides). The analysis of the antibiotic pipeline and ongoing clinical trials revealed that several new antibiotics with S. aureus (including MRSA) coverage were developed in the past decade (2009–19). However, none belonged to a new antibiotic class or had superior effectiveness and their added clinical value for SAB remains to be proven. Responsible antibiotic use for the treatment of SAB was illustrated using 11 quality indicators.

Conclusions

Awareness of the problem of a limited antibiotic arsenal, together with incentives (e.g. push incentives), is needed to steer the R&D landscape towards the development of novel and effective antibiotics for treating SAB. In the meantime, responsible antibiotic use guided by quality indicators should preserve the effectiveness of currently available antibiotics for treating SAB.

A deeper analysis in thyroid research: A meta-epidemiological study of the American Thyroid Association clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

The American Thyroid Association (ATA) uses the GRADE or the American College of Physicians (ACP) system to develop recommendations. Recommendations based on low-quality evidence should spur for the conduction of clinical studies, if feasible. The extent to which recommendations by the ATA based on low-quality of evidence are being actively researched remains unknown.

METHODS

Clinical guidelines produced by the ATA using the GRADE or the ACP system to classify evidence were deemed eligible. Reviewers, in duplicate and independently, extracted therapeutic recommendations based on low-quality evidence, whereas recommendations with higher quality of evidence, aimed at diagnosis, or best practice statements were excluded. Eligible recommendations based on low-quality evidence were deconstructed to their components using the PICO format. We then searched on clinicaltrials.gov to identify ongoing research. Trials were deemed eligible if they addressed the PICO question with at least one of the intended outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 543 recommendations were retrieved, of which 305 (56%) were based on low-quality of evidence and only 90 were deemed eligible. Of these, we found that 33 (37%) recommendations were actively being researched in 53 clinical trials. Most of the trials were randomized and funded by non-profit organizations. Many clinical trials studied thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer (26/53; 49%), whereas few studied were aimed at anaplastic thyroid cancer (2/53; 4%).

CONCLUSION

One out of three of gaps in evidence, identified as low quality during the development of ATA guidelines, are currently actively researched. This finding calls for the need to develop a better research infrastructure and funding to support thyroid research.

Interventions to Optimize Spinal Cord Perfusion in Patients with Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injuries: A Systematic Review

Interventions to optimize spinal cord perfusion via support of mean arterial pressure (MAP) or spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) are thought to play a critical role in the management of patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries, but there is ongoing controversy about efficacy and safety. We aimed to determine the effects of optimizing spinal cord perfusion on neurological recovery and risks for adverse events. We searched multiple databases for published and unpublished reports. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. We synthesized data and evaluated confidence in anticipated treatment effects according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified 20 eligible observational studies and 1 eligible randomized controlled trial. According to low or very low quality evidence, the effect of MAP support on neurological recovery after acute traumatic spinal cord injury is uncertain, and the use of vasopressors to support MAP may be associated with increased rates of predominantly cardiac adverse events. Increased SCPP appears likely to be associated with improved neurological recovery, but SCPP monitoring via intradural catheters at the anatomical site of injury may involve increased risks of cerebrospinal fluid leakage requiring revision surgery or pseudomeningocele. No study directly compared the effects of specific MAP goal ranges, SCPP ranges, SCPP monitoring techniques, or durations of treatment. Very low quality evidence suggests that norepinephrine may have less risk of adverse events than dopamine. The current literature is insufficient to make strong recommendations about interventions to support spinal cord perfusion via MAP or SCPP goals in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries. Data are compatible with a variety of treatment decisions, and individualized approaches may be optimal. Further investigation to clarify the risks, benefits, and alternatives to MAP or SCPP support in this population is warranted.

Most recommended medical interventions reach P < 0.005 for their primary outcomes in meta-analyses

Background

It has been proposed that the threshold of statistical significance should shift from P-value &lt; 0.05 to P-value &lt; 0.005, but there is concern that this move may dismiss effective, useful interventions. We aimed to assess how often medical interventions are recommended although their evidence in meta-analyses of randomized trials lies between P-value = 0.05 and P-value = 0.005.

Methods

We included Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published from 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2014 that had at least one meta-analysis with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessment and at least one primary outcome having favourable results for efficacy at P-value &lt; 0.05. Only comparisons of randomized trials between active versus no treatment/placebo were included. We then assessed the respective UpToDate recommendations for clinical practice from 22 May 2018 to 5 October 2018 and recorded how many treatments were recommended and what were the P-values in their meta-analysis evidence. The primary analysis was based on the first-listed outcomes.

Results

Of 608 screened SRs with GRADE assessment, 113 SRs were eligible, including 143 comparisons of which 128 comparisons had first-listed primary outcomes with UpToDate coverage. Altogether, 60% (58/97) of interventions with P-values &lt; 0.005 for their evidence were recommended versus 32% (10/31) of those with P-value 0.005–0.05. Therefore, most (58/68, 85.2%) of the recommended interventions had P-values &lt; 0.005 for the first-listed primary outcome. Of the 10 exceptions, 4 had other primary outcomes with P-values &lt; 0.005 and another 4 had additional extensive evidence for similar indications that would allow extrapolation for practice recommendations.

Conclusions

Few interventions are recommended without their evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials reaching P-value &lt; 0.005.

[CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice: Revision of the Methodology]

OBJECTIVES

To revise the organization and the methodology of the Practice Clinical Guidelines (PCG) of the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF).

METHODS

The different available methods of PCG organization and of scientific evidence grading have been consulted after searching in the Medline database.

RESULTS

The PCG group of the CNGOF has decided to adopt the AGREE II (for Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation) methology for PCG organization and the GRADE (for Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system for grading scientific evidence.

CONCLUSION

By adopting the AGREE II consortium criteria and grading scientific evidence according to the GRADE system, the CNGOF will increase the quality of the overall process, will deliver more targeted and easy to assimilate recommendations, to facilitate professional decision making.

A unifying framework for improving health care

The quality health care around world is suboptimal. To improve the quality of contemporary health care delivery, advocates have proposed a number of scientific and technical initiatives. All these initiatives, however, have arisen and continue to operate in siloes, resulting in confusion and incommensurability among those concerned with health care improvement. Participants in the quality improvement (QI) space typically stress their own, often narrow, perspective, failing to place QI in context or to acknowledge other approaches. In order to improve delivery of health care, the following is required: Provide a unifying framework for improving health care. We argue this is best done under a Health System Science (HSS) framework but with full understanding that the fundamental principles of HSS are rooted in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and decision sciences. Understand that QI initiatives are fundamentally local activities. Hence, incentivizing bottom-up, local QI initiatives would improve health care delivery to a far greater extent than the current top-down initiatives undertaken in a response to various regulatory mandates. Akin to the "Choosing Wisely" initiative, which challenged professional societies, each institution should identify (a) the extent to which its practices are evidence-based and (b) the top 5 health care practices or interventions that, at a given institution, represent overuse, underuse, or misuse/error or undermine clinicians' efforts to deliver kind and empathic care. Providing a framework that can unify the current patchwork of the initiatives would help create a common basis to help align all the existing QI efforts. In addition, thinking small (at local level) may lead to health care quality improvements that national initiatives (thinking big), focused on regulation, competition, or legal requirements, have failed to achieve.

Uma proposta metodológica para a elaboração de revisões clínicas

As revisões clínicas são sumários de evidências com escopo amplo e orientação à prática profissional, ocupando um dos mais altos níveis da pirâmide da assistência à saúde baseada em evidências. Com base nessa pirâmide, refletimos sobre as instruções aos autores de periódicos em medicina de família e comunidade para propor instruções para a escrita de revisões clínicas. As instruções abrangem a busca, avaliação, síntese e análise das evidências clínicas, além do planejamento e redação da revisão. Esperamos que estas instruções ajudem a elevar a quantidade e qualidade das revisões clínicas em medicina de família e comunidade no país.

Diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic evidence in obstetrics for the implementation of patient blood management: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patientblood management (PBM) is defined as the application of evidence-based diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic approaches designed to maintain haemoglobin concentration, optimise haemostasis and minimise blood loss in an effort to improve patient outcome. We propose a protocol for the assessment of the evidence of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic approaches for the management of relevant outcomes in obstetrics with the aim to create a framework for PBM implementation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic tools will be considered in the gynaecological conditions and obstetrics setting (antenatal care, peripartum care and maternity care). For each condition, (1) clinical questions based on prioritised outcomes will be developed; (2) evidence will be retrieved systematically from electronic medical literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL); (3) quality of the reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklist; quality of primary intervention studies will be assessed using the risk of bias tool (Cochrane method); quality of diagnostic primary studies will be assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies); (4) the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method will be applied to rate the quality of the evidence and to develop recommendations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

For each diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic intervention evaluated, a manuscript comprising the evidence retrieved and the recommendation produced will be provided and published in peer-reviewed journals. Ethical approval is not required.