Extending the RIGHT statement for reporting adapted practice guidelines in healthcare: the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist protocol

Strengths and Weaknesses of HIV Partner Notification Implementation in Iran

HIV partner notification is a key intervention to facilitate access to HIV testing and treatment. This qualitative study investigated the strengths and weaknesses of the HIV partner notification program in Iran. Additionally, it provides comprehensive recommendations to mitigate potential harms and maximize the benefits of partner notification services. Using purposive sampling, 15 participants, including policymakers, service providers, and researchers in the field of HIV, were recruited from nine provinces between September and December 2023. The qualitative content analysis was conducted using the Graneheim and Lundman approach. Several strengths were reported for the HIV partner notification program, including alignment with international guidelines, use of trained counselors, integration with current HIV testing guidelines being used by HIV testing centers funded by the Ministry of Health, and a well-developed monitoring and evaluation plan at the facility, provincial, and national levels. Notable weaknesses of the program included a lack of a detailed implementation plan overall and for some key populations at high risk for HIV, such as female sex workers, lack of integration of the program with HIV testing services provided in hospitals and HIV centers funded by the Welfare Organization in Iran, lack of a simple quality checklist for monitoring and evaluation of the program. To increase the coverage and quality of the HIV partner notification program in Iran, a more detailed implementation plan, a simple quality checklist, and more targeted advocacy and training programs are needed.

Adapted Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Epilepsies in Children: A Tertiary Children's Hospital Update

HYPOTHESIS AND/OR BACKGROUND

We recently updated and merged the adapted clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the diagnosis and treatment of children with epilepsy of a tertiary-level hospital. Medical knowledge is always evolving. As a result, it is critical to revisit the clinical standards on a frequent basis to ensure that the best services are offered to the target receivers. The purpose of this article was to update and merge the CPGs at Alexandria University Children Hospital (AUCH) for the diagnosis (2014) and treatment (2016) of children with epilepsy to unify and standardize the practice for better care and outcome.

METHODS

This review and update CPG project was initiated by assembling a Guideline Review Group (GRG). The GRG conducted focus group discussions and decided to search any published updates of the recommendations of the previously identified high-quality and evidence-based CPG developed by the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) and to merge the two previous local CPGs under one comprehensive CPG for full management of epilepsy in children. The high quality of the selected source CPG from SIGN was based on quality assessment of CPGs undertaken previously using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument. The GRG followed the Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp), which is the CPG tool recommended by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research Network for reporting of updated CPGs in addition to the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist for Adapted CPGs. The finalized updated CPG draft was sent to the external reviewer group topic experts.

RESULTS

The group updated 10 main categories of recommendations from one source CPG (SIGN). The recommendations included (1) epilepsy diagnosis; (2) recognition, identification, and referral; (3) pharmacological treatment of epilepsy and epilepsy syndromes; (4) nonpharmacological treatment of epilepsy and epilepsy syndromes; (5) managing pharmacoresistant epilepsy; (6) management of epilepsy in special groups; (7) medications; (8) children and caregiver education and support; (9) comorbidities and mortality; and (10) transitional care from pediatric to adult care services.

CONCLUSIONS

The finalized CPG provides evidence-based guidance to health care providers in AUCH for the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in children. The study also established the significance of a collaborative clinical and methodological expert group for the update of CPGs, as well as the usability of the "CheckUp" and "RIGHT-Ad@pt" CPG Tools.

Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment

AIM

Evidence-based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high-quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CPGs and CSs.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and online sources (59 professional society websites and eight guideline databases) were systematically searched following prospective registration (PROSPERO no. CRD42021286146) by two reviewers independently, without language restrictions. CPGs and CSs about CRC and anal cancer treatment were included from January 2018 to November 2021 and were assessed using the AGREE II tool (per cent of maximum score) and the RIGHT tool (per cent of total 35 items) for quality and reporting respectively.

RESULTS

The median overall quality and reporting of the 59 guidelines analysed were 55.0% (interquartile range 47.0-62.0) and 58% (interquartile range 50.0-67.9), respectively, with a proportion scoring less than half (<50%) for quality (20/59, 33.9%) and reporting (15/59, 25.4%). Guidance reported that following AGREE II methodology scored better on average than that without (AGREE II 77.7% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 50.0% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.001). Guidelines based on systematic reviews had better quality and reporting on average than those based on consensus (AGREE II 56.5% vs. 46.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 36.9% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The quality and reporting of colorectal and anal cancer treatment CPGs and CSs were poor. Despite AGREE II and RIGHT inherent methodological limitations, few high-quality guidelines were found. Despite wide variability in scoring different domains, they merit urgent improvement in all areas. It has also been demonstrated that CPGs and CSs should be underpinned by systematic reviews collecting the best available clinical research findings.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist

BACKGROUND

Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist.

DESIGN

A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group.

SETTING

International collaboration.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process.

MEASUREMENTS

Participants' consensus on items in the checklist.

RESULTS

The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience.

LIMITATION

The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use.

CONCLUSION

The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Methodological approaches for developing, reporting, and assessing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: A systematic survey

OBJECTIVE

To produce a mapping and feature summary of approaches and tools available for the CPG community to develop, report, or assess four types of CPGs: (1) Standard original (or de novo) CPG, (2) Rapid original CPG, (3) Adapted/adopted CPGs, and (4) Updated CPGs.

STUDY DESIGN

The systematic literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to October 13 2020. Two websites that collect and recommend approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess CPGs were also searched: Guidelines International Network and Equator Network. We screened the search results to include methodological papers that aimed to develop specific approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess any of the aforementioned four CPG types.

RESULTS

Among 10,581 citations, 46 papers reporting 46 approaches/tools were included. Of these 46 approaches/tools, 33 were about CPG development, seven were for CPG reporting, and six for CPG assessment. Among the 33 development approaches/tools, 26 did not state usability or validity information; but nine from 13 reporting or assessment approaches/tools did.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a mapping and feature summary of the current available approaches/tools, which serves to improve users' understanding to pave the way for informed choice and application.

Developing the RIGHT extension statement for practice guideline protocols: the RIGHT-P statement protocol

Background: A protocol for a practice guideline can facilitate the guideline development process, ensure its transparency, and improve the quality of the guidelines. However, there are currently no reporting guideline for guideline protocols. Methods: We intend to develop an extension of the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for guideline protocols (RIGHT-P). We will follow the toolkit for developing a reporting guideline developed by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. We will form a multidisciplinary international team of experts. The development of RIGHT-P will be conducted in 12 steps grouped in three stages over a two-year period. Results: The results of RIGHT-P statement will be presented in an article to be published later. Conclusion: This report describes the process of RIGHT-P statement development. We believe RIGHT-P will help guideline developers improve the reporting of guideline protocols and indirectly improve their quality and the quality of guidelines. Registration: We registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network.

Recommendations for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care, are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options, and ensure that the best available clinical knowledge is used to provide effective and quality care. They can reduce inappropriate care and variability in clinical practice and can support the translation of new research knowledge into clinical practice. Recommendations from clinical practice guidelines can support health professionals by facilitating the decision-making process, empowering them to make more informed health care choices, clarifying which interventions should be priorities based on a favorable trade-off, and discouraging the use of those that have proven ineffective, dangerous, or wasteful. This review aims to summarize the key components of high-quality and trustworthy guidelines. Articles were retrieved from various libraries, databases, and search engines using free-text term searches adapted for different databases, and selected according to author discretion. Clinical practice guidelines in geriatrics can have a major impact on prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, health care, and the management of diseases and conditions, but they should only be implemented when they have high-quality, rigorous, and unbiased methodologies that consider older adult priorities and provide valid recommendations.

Current practices and challenges in adaptation of clinical guidelines: a qualitative study based on semistructured interviews

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to better understand the current practice of clinical guideline adaptation and identify challenges raised in this process, given that published adapted clinical guidelines are generally of low quality, poorly reported and not based on published frameworks.

DESIGN

A qualitative study based on semistructured interviews. We conducted a framework analysis for the adaptation process, and thematic analysis for participants' views and experiences about adaptation process.

SETTING

Nine guideline development organisations from seven countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Guideline developers who have adapted clinical guidelines within the last 3 years. We identified potential participants through published adapted clinical guidelines, recommendations from experts, and a review of the Guideline International Network Conference attendees' list.

RESULTS

We conducted ten interviews and identified nine adaptation methodologies. The reasons for adapting clinical guidelines include developing de novo clinical guidelines, implementing source clinical guidelines, and harmonising and updating existing clinical guidelines. We identified the following core steps of the adaptation process (1) selection of scope and source guideline(s), (2) assessment of source materials (guidelines, recommendations and evidence level), (3) decision-making process and (4) external review and follow-up process. Challenges on the adaptation of clinical guidelines include limitations from source clinical guidelines (poor quality or reporting), limitations from adaptation settings (lacking resources or skills), adaptation process intensity and complexity, and implementation barriers. We also described how participants address the complexities and implementation issues of the adaptation process.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptation processes have been increasingly used to develop clinical guidelines, with the emergence of different purposes. The identification of core steps and assessment levels could help guideline adaptation developers streamline their processes. More methodological research is needed to develop rigorous international standards for adapting clinical guidelines.

Clinical Epidemiology in China series. Paper 4: The reporting and methodological quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published between 2014 and 2018: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in China and published in medical journals between 2014 and 2018.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CBM (China Biology Medicine), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data. We included all clinical practice guidelines developed in China between 2014 and 2018. The AGREE II tool and the RIGHT checklist were used to appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively.

RESULTS

We identified 17,188 records, and included finally 573 CPGs. Most (n=507, 88.5%) were published in Chinese, and 508 (88.7%) were about Western medicine. Only 62 (10.8%) of the guidelines used the GRADE approach. The mean overall score of methodological quality over all guidelines was 19.4%, and the mean scores for the AGREE II domains were 28.6% (Scope and purpose), 17.0% (Stakeholder involvement), 11.7% (Rigor of development), 32.2% (Clarity of presentation), 14.2% (Applicability) and 12.8% (Editorial independence). The mean overall score for reporting quality over all guidelines was 30.2%, with the following mean scores for each RIGHT domain: 55.6% (Basic information), 43.8% (Background), 14.5% (Evidence), 29.2% (Recommendations), 10.7% (Review and quality assurance), 12.6% (Funding and declaration of interest) and 8.4% (Other information). Subgroup analyses found that both the methodological and reporting quality were generally higher among CPGs that used evidence grading systems or reported receiving funding.

CONCLUSION

Both the methodological quality and the reporting quality of CPGs developed in China have improved over time, but are still below the international average.

Contextual differences considered in the Tunisian ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines on breast cancer screening

Background

Breast cancer is a common disease in Tunisia and is associated with high mortality rates. The “Instance Nationale de l’Evaluation et de l’Accréditation en Santé” (INEAS) and the Tunisian Society of Oncology decided to develop practice guidelines on the subject. While the development of de novo guidelines on breast cancer screening is a demanding process, guideline adaptation appears more appropriate and context sensitive. The objective of this paper is to describe the adaptation process of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis to the Tunisian setting in terms of the methodological process, contextual differences between the source and adoloped guideline, and changes in the recommendations.

Methods

We used the ‘Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation’ (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology to prioritize the topic, select the source guideline, and prioritize the questions and the outcomes. Once the source guideline was selected—the European Breast Cancer Guidelines—the European Commission´s Joint Research Centre shared with the project team in Tunisia all relevant documents and files. In parallel, the project team searched for local studies on the disease prevalence, associated outcomes’ baseline risks, patients’ values and preferences, cost, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility. Then, the adoloping panel reviewed the GRADE evidence tables and the Evidence to Decision tables and discussed whether their own judgments were consistent with those from the source guideline or not. They based their judgments on the evidence on health effects, the contextual evidence, and their own experiences.

Results

The most relevant contextual differences between the source and adoloped guidelines were related to the perspective, scope, prioritized questions, rating of outcome importance, baseline risks, and indirectness of the evidence. The ADOLOPMENT process resulted in keeping 5 out of 6 recommendations unmodified. One recommendation addressing “screening versus no screening with ultrasound in women with high breast density on mammography screening” was modified from ‘conditional against’ to ‘conditional for either’ due to more favorable ratings by the adoloping panel in terms of equity and feasibility.

Conclusion

This process illustrates both the feasibility of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach and the importance of consideration of contextual evidence. It also highlights the value of collaboration with the organization that developed the source guideline.

Guidance we can trust? The status and quality of prehospital clinical guidance in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital care is integral in addressing sub-Saharan Africa's (SSA) high injury and illness burden. Consequently, robust, high-quality prehospital guidance documents are needed to inform care. These guidance documents include, but are not limited to, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), protocols and algorithms that are contextually appropriate for SSA. However, SSA prehospital guidance mostly originates from the 'Global North,' with limited guidance for Africa by Africans. To strengthen prehospital clinical practice in SSA, we described and appraised all prehospital SSA guidance documents informing clinical decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of prehospital-relevant guidance documents, including CPGs, algorithms, protocols and position statements originating from SSA. We performed a comprehensive literature search in various databases (PUBMED and SCOPUS), guideline clearing houses (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Trip, and Guidelines International Network), journals, various forms of grey literature and contacted experts. Guidance document screening and data extraction was done independently, in duplicate and reviewed by a third author. Guidance quality was then determined using the AGREE II tool and data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We included 51 guidance documents from 13 countries across SSA after screening 2320 potential documents. The majority of guidance documents lacked an evidence foundation, made recommendations based on expert input, and were predominantly end-user presentations such as algorithms or protocols. Overall, reporting quality was poor, specifically for critical domains such as rigour of development; however, clarity of presentation was generally strong. Guidance topics were focused around resuscitation and common diseases (both communicable and non-communicable) with major gaps identified across a variety of topics; such as mental health for example.

CONCLUSION

The majority of prehospital clinical guidance from SSA provides clinicians with excellent ready to use end-user material. Conversely, most of the guidance documents lack an appropriate evidence foundation and fail to transparently report the guidance development process, highlighting the need to strengthen and build guideline development capacity to promote the transition from eminence-based to evidence-based guidance for prehospital care in SSA. Guideline developers, professional societies and publishers need to be aware of international and local guidance document development and reporting standards in order to produce guidance we can trust.

Adapting evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Saudi Arabia: process and outputs of a national initiative

BACKGROUND

We recently adapted the published National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis and management guideline to the Saudi Arabian context. It has been postulated that adaptation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to the local healthcare context rather than de-novo development will improve their adoption and implementation without imposing a significant burden on resources. The objective of this paper is to describe the adaptation process methodology utilized for the generation of the first national guideline for management of people with ADHD in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

We used the KSU-Modified-ADAPTE methodology for the guideline adaptation process. We describe the full process in detail including the three phases of set-up, adaptation, and finalization. The process was conducted by a multidisciplinary guideline adaptation group in addition to an external review for the clinical content and methodology.

RESULTS

The group adapted ten main categories of recommendations from one source CPG (NICE). The recommendations include: (i) service organisation and training, (ii) recognition, identification and referral, (iii) diagnosis, (iv) support, (v) managing ADHD, (vi) dietary advice, (vii) medication, (viii) maintenance and monitoring, (ix) adherence to treatment, and (x) review of medication and discontinuation. Several implementation tools were compiled and developed to enhance implementability including a clinical algorithm, quality measures, coding system, medication tables, translations, patient information, and online resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The finalized clinical practice guideline provides healthcare providers with applicable evidence-based guidance for the management of people with ADHD in Saudi Arabia. The project also demonstrated the effectiveness of KSU-Modified-ADAPTE, and emphasized the value of a collaborative clinical and methodological expert group for adaptation of national guidelines.

Review article: Developing the Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Mild to Moderate Head Injuries in Children: An adoption/adaption approach

The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) released the Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Mild to Moderate Head Injuries in Children in 2021. We describe innovative and practical methods used to develop this guideline. Informed by GRADE-ADOLOPMENT and ADAPTE frameworks, we adopted or adapted recommendations from multiple high-quality guidelines or developed de novo recommendations. A Guideline Steering Committee and a multidisciplinary Guideline Working Group of 25 key stakeholder representatives formulated the guideline scope and developed 33 clinical questions. We identified four relevant high-quality source guidelines; their recommendations were mapped to clinical questions. The choice of guideline recommendation, if more than one guideline addressed a question, was based on its appropriateness, currency of the literature, access to evidence, and relevance. Updated literature searches identified 440 new studies and key new evidence identified. The decision to develop adopted, adapted or de novo recommendations was based on the supporting evidence-base and its transferability to the local setting. The guideline underwent a 12-week consultation period. The final guideline consisted of 35 evidence-informed and 17 consensus-based recommendations and 19 practice points. An algorithm to inform imaging and observation decision-making was also developed. The resulting process was an efficient and rigorous way to develop a guideline based on existing high-quality guidelines from different settings.

Protocol of an interdisciplinary consensus project aiming to develop an AGREE II extension for guidelines in surgery

INTRODUCTION

Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) is an instrument that informs development, reporting and assessment of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has demonstrated the need for improvement in methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines specifically in surgery. We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension document for application in surgical guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We have performed a structured literature review and assessment of guidelines in surgery using the AGREE II instrument. In exploratory analyses, we have identified factors associated with guideline quality. We have performed reliability and factor analyses to inform the development of an extension document. We will summarise this information and present it to a Delphi panel of stakeholders. We will perform iterative Delphi rounds and we will summarise the final results to develop the extension instrument in a dedicated consensus conference.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Funding bodies will not be involved in the development of the instrument. Research ethics committee and Health Research Authority approval was waived, since this is a professional staff study only and no duty of care lies with the National Health Service to any of the participants. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by reassigning functions or replacing participants with relevant conflicts. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer reviewed journals, the funders' websites, social media and direct contact with guideline development organisations and peer-reviewed journals that publish guidelines.

Strengthening prehospital clinical practice guideline implementation in South Africa: a qualitative case study

BACKGROUND

Methods on developing new (de novo) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have received substantial attention. However, research into alternative methods of CPG development using existing CPG documents (CPG adaptation) - a specific issue for guideline development groups in low- and middle-income countries - is sparse. There are only a few examples showcasing the pragmatic application of such alternative approaches in settings with time and budget constraints, especially in the prehospital setting. This paper aims to describe and strengthen the methods of developing prehospital CPGs using alternative guideline development methods through a case study design.

METHODS

We qualitatively explored a CPG development project conducted in 2016 for prehospital providers in South Africa as a case study. Key stakeholders, involved in various processes of the guideline project, were purposefully sampled. Data were collected from one focus group and six in-depth interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. Overarching themes and sub-themes were inductively developed and categorised as challenges and recommendations and further transformed into action points.

RESULTS

Key challenges revolved around guideline implementation as opposed to development. These included the unavoidable effect of interest and beliefs on implementing recommendations, the local evidence void, a shifting implementation context, and opposing end-user needs. Guideline development and implementation strengthening priority actions included: i) developing a national end-user document; ii) aligning recommendations with local practice; iii) communicating a clear and consistent message; iv) addressing controversial recommendations; v) managing the impact of interests, beliefs and intellectual conflicts; and vi) transparently reporting implementation decisions.

CONCLUSION

The cornerstone of a successful guideline development process is the translation and implementation of CPG recommendations into clinical practice. We highlight key priority actions for prehospital guideline development teams with limited resources to strengthen guideline development, dissemination, and implementation by drawing from lessons learnt from a prehospital guideline project conducted in South Africa.

Small but great steps

At the beginning of 2020 it is our pleasure to inform our readers about the changes in structure and future projects this journal will undertake. First of all, we wish to thank The National and International Editorial Committee, as well as the journal reviewers, for their enthusiasm, dedication, and scientific rigor in their silent and behind-the-scenes task of improving the quality of the published materials.