Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines

Best practice guidelines and service provision for supporting women with birth-related trauma: A scoping review of international literature

PROBLEM

Birth trauma (BT) is a significant public health concern affecting approximately one-third of the 140 million annual births worldwide, yet it lacks a unified approach for effective intervention. This study investigates the global landscape of BT management, focusing on the current best practice guidelines and service provisions for supporting women with birth-related trauma and the practicable actionable gaps that needs to be addressed.

METHODS

This scoping review followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, and systematically searched 13 electronic databases and websites for clinical guidelines, policy documents, care standards, practice recommendations and service provisions related to BT. The search yielded eight guidelines, of which were assessed using the AGREE II appraisal tool. Additionally, eight peer-reviewed articles focusing on current practices and service recommendations were analysed alongside the guidelines using a narrative synthesis approach.

FINDINGS

There are gaps between guideline recommendations and service experiences, barriers and facilitators at the patient, provider, and system levels as well as between research, policy and clinical practice. Of the guidelines included, only three rated high quality (>70 %).

DISCUSSION

There was consistency in recommending trauma-informed care, collaborative care between health professionals, patient and practitioner education and debriefing as an intervention. However, there were inconsistencies in the definition of BT and most lacked details on the steps, structure or practical tools that should be used. Seven key themes were identified regarding gaps between proposed guidelines and actual experiences of women after traumatic birth.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for standardised, evidence-based guidelines that are user-friendly and provide practical advice for implementing trauma-informed care.

Evidence and Consensus-Based Imaging Guidelines in Multifocal Choroiditis with Panuveitis and Punctate Inner Choroiditis - Multimodal Imaging in Uveitis (MUV) Taskforce Report 5

PURPOSE

To develop imaging and consensus-based guidelines on the application of multimodal imaging in noninfectious multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis (MFCPU) and punctate inner choroiditis (PIC).

DESIGN

Consensus agreement guided by the review of literature and an expert committee using nominal group technique (NGT).

METHODS

An expert committee applied a timed structured nominal group technique (NGT) to achieve consensus-based recommendations on specific disease characteristics, biomarkers of activity, and complications for MFCPU and PIC. Representative cases with non-infectious active and inactive MFCPU and PIC with color fundus photographs (CFP), optical coherence tomography (OCT), fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA), OCT angiography (OCTA), indocyanine angiography (ICGA), and fundus autofluorescence images (FAF) were reviewed. These recommendations were voted upon by the entire task force.

RESULTS

The experts agreed that lesions of MFCPU and PIC can be well characterized using CFP. OCT is the preferred modality for detecting active lesions. Both FAF and OCT are effective for monitoring disease recurrence. Late-phase ICGA is most valuable in recurrent disease when the lesions are not visible on FAF and CFP. While OCTA and ICGA can successfully identify lesions and complications such as choroidal neovascularization, no imaging biomarkers were found to reliably distinguish between active and inactive lesions on these two modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating imaging findings, particularly OCT, into the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) classification criteria for MFCPU and PIC enables more precise assessment of disease activity. These consensus-based guidelines provide a framework for selecting optimal imaging modalities for diagnosis, monitoring and identification of complications of MFCPU and PIC.

Ethical leadership in a complex adaptive system (CAS) reducing out-of-pocket healthcare expenses in an emergency department in Nepal

PURPOSE

This research used ethical leadership to engage doctors to implement an international National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline (NICE, 2014) in an emergency department (ED) in Nepal. The purpose of this study was to reduce unwarranted clinical variation in decision-making and thereby reduce unnecessary costs for patients by paying for computed tomography (CT) scans after a head injury where they are not clinically indicated. The World Health Organization (WHO) in its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2017), identified SDG 3.8 as a goal to reduce "out-of-pocket" (OOP) health spending in low medium income countries (LMIC) to reduce poverty.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A quantitative study was designed, using a multiple-choice questionnaire based on the NICE head injury guideline 2014, with n = 27 doctors at pre- and post-training. Retrospective baseline patient data was collected from 149 patients (n = 149). These data were individually matched with the patient online record system and a detailed history, and the indication of CT head referral was reviewed on the clinical history part of the patient's notes. A teaching session for doctors explained a flowchart for the NICE CT Head Guideline and different figures and case scenarios regarding patients presenting with a head injury were discussed. All data were collected and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet 2013. An analysis of the data was done by Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 18. A sample of 302 patients (n = 302) were followed up after implementation of the guideline in the department.

FINDINGS

In this study, most common causes of head injury are RTA followed by physical assault and fall injury. There was no statistical difference in the type of injury p < 0.05. X2 (2, n = 454) = 2.4467, p = 0.2942, meaning that at both stages of the research the injury pattern was the same. Compliance has not improved statistically, and this may be due to a low power as it is only 44%. However, there is an appreciable improvement of compliance from 46.3% (before) to 56% (after), which is nearly 10% improvement. Translated to CT scans, this can be taken as reducing unnecessary CTs by 10%. Since 302 CTs were performed in the second phase, this study has demonstrated that nearly 30 unnecessary CT scans have been prevented from being carried out. If one CT cost 20 pounds, then the total saving was 600 pounds. If this study was undertaken over one month, then the total saving for a year would be 600 × 12 = 7200 pounds.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

This study set out to improve the quality of care provided to patients with a head injury who presented to an ED in Nepal. In Nepal as in other LMIC healthcare delivery is improving but there are still low levels of health insurance resulting in many patients having to pay OOP expenses for healthcare. The drive to undertake this study was influenced by the aim to reduce the amount of OOP expense incurred by patients for unnecessary CT head scans following a head injury. Measuring OOP expenses of a population helps to assess the impact on living standards and the impact of the health care financial system on improving financial protection (Hsu et al., 2018). It is also an important risk factor for death, physical disability and impoverishment (Baggio et al., 2018). In this study OOP expenses were reduced by 10% with the implementation of a clinical protocol. This study has shown a direct correlation between the training of doctors to implement a clinical protocol and the reduction of OOP expenses.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The WHO's SDG 3.2 seeks to reduce "OOP expenses" in relation to healthcare. This study has shown that by implementing an international protocol, standardization in decision-making will be improved resulting in reducing "OOP" expenses in healthcare for patients.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

In LMIC, there is a need to identify practical and social strategies to prevent patients falling into poverty when accessing healthcare. This research study shows the potential for providing ethical leadership as a framework to support the implementation of a protocol to reduce OOP expenses for patients.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first time a research study has identified the role of ethical leadership positioned with complex adaptive systems to promote the combined bottom-up and top-down approach of integrating ethical leadership in clinical research design to reduce OOP health expenses for patients in Nepal.

Key standards and principles for developing evidence-based clinical guidelines: balancing health professional, patient, funder, and government needs

Clinical practice guidelines are critical tools to inform healthcare decision-making, yet development faces significant challenges in ensuring rigorous, reliable, and globally applicable recommendations. This review examines the essential standards and evolving approaches for creating high-quality, evidence-based guidelines that can effectively support clinical practice across diverse healthcare settings. Key standards for high-quality clinical practice guideline development emerge from leading global health organizations, emphasizing several critical components-establishing a multidisciplinary development group, defining a clear and relevant scope, conducting systematic evidence reviews and meta-analyses, and ensuring transparency throughout the development process. Innovative principles address emerging challenges such as research integrity assessment, incorporation of patient-centered methodologies, promotion of global collaborative approaches, and development of strategic implementation strategies. These evolving principles recognize the complex landscape of modern healthcare, where guidelines should adhere to rigorous standards to genuinely improve patient outcomes and encourage best practice care across diverse healthcare settings.

Methodological Quality and Content of Guidelines on Early Childhood Allergy Prevention: A Systematic Assessment and Content Analysis

Recommendations on Early Childhood Allergy Prevention (ECAP) are found in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) and Food-Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDG). This synthesis of guidelines aims to compare the methodological quality and content of recommendations in CPGs and FBDGs for ECAP. We searched MEDLINE, the FAO directory of FBDGs and other guideline databases, including the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), the WHO and the Guideline International Networks database on clinical guidelines (GIN) for CPGs and FBDGs about ECAP and child nutrition. Guidelines had to be published from 2010 onwards, target infants or pregnant/breastfeeding women and contain recommendations on primary preventative interventions to decrease the onset of IgE-mediated allergies, including atopic eczema or asthma. We retrieved a sample of 36 guidelines (23 CPGs, 13 FBDGs) and assessed their methodological quality with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool (AGREE) II. On a subset of recommendations, we performed an in-depth analysis by the type of intervention for direction and strength of recommendation and level of evidence. Descriptive analysis was conducted with SPSS 27. CPGs score higher than FBDGs in most AGREE domains (3, 4, 5 and 6). The 36 guidelines contain 287 recommendations on ECAP, with 70 addressing the introduction of complementary foods and common allergens. We found only slight differences between those recommendations in CPGs and FBDGs. FBDGs on ECAP are of lower quality than CPGs. This does not affect their recommendations on the introduction of complementary foods and common allergens but may compromise their trustworthiness.

Pharmacologic Treatments of Acute Episodic Migraine Headache in Outpatient Settings: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments of acute episodic migraine headache, patients' values and preferences, and economic evidence about these pharmacologic treatments.

METHODS

This guideline is based on a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments of acute episodic migraine headaches, as well as systematic reviews of patients' values and preferences and comparative cost-effectiveness analyses. The Clinical Guidelines Committee evaluated the following clinical outcomes using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach: pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours; sustained pain freedom and sustained pain relief up to 48 hours; need for rescue medication within 24 hours; nausea, vomiting, and restored physical function at 2 hours; and overall and serious adverse events (AEs). Additional data on AEs were captured through U.S. Food and Drug Administration medication labels.

AUDIENCE AND POPULATION

The audience for this clinical guideline is physicians and other clinicians. The population is adults with acute episodic migraine headache (defined as 1 to 14 headache days per month) managed in outpatient settings.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP recommends that clinicians add a triptan to a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug to treat moderate to severe acute episodic migraine headache in outpatient settings for nonpregnant adults who do not respond adequately to a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP suggests that clinicians add a triptan to acetaminophen to treat moderate to severe acute episodic migraine headache in outpatient settings for nonpregnant adults who do not respond adequately to acetaminophen (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Computer aided detection and diagnosis of polyps in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy: a living clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

In adult patients undergoing colonoscopy for any indication (screening, surveillance, follow-up of positive faecal immunochemical testing, or gastrointestinal symptoms such as blood in the stools) what are the benefits and harms of computer-aided detection (CADe)?

CONTEXT AND CURRENT PRACTICE

Colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death globally, typically arises from adenomatous polyps. Detection and removal of polyps during colonoscopy can reduce the risk of cancer. CADe systems use artificial intelligence (AI) to assist endoscopists by analysing real-time colonoscopy images to detect potential polyps. Despite their increasing use in clinical practice, guideline recommendations that carefully balance all patient-important outcomes remain unavailable. In this first iteration of a living guideline, we address the use of CADe at the level of an individual patient.

EVIDENCE

Evidence for this recommendation is drawn from a living systematic review of 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving more than 30 000 participants and a companion microsimulation study simulating 10 year follow-up for 100 000 individuals aged 60-69 years to assess the impact of CADe on patient-important outcomes. While no direct evidence was found for critical outcomes of colorectal cancer incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, low certainty data from the trials indicate that CADe may increase positive endoscopy findings. The microsimulation modelling, however, suggests little to no effect on CRC incidence, CRC-related mortality, or colonoscopy-related complications (perforation and bleeding) over the 10 year follow-up period, although low certainty evidence indicates CADe may increase the number of colonoscopies performed per patient. A review of values and preferences identified that patients value mortality reduction and quality of care but worry about increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and more frequent surveillance.

RECOMMENDATION

For adults who have agreed to undergo colonoscopy, we suggest against the routine use of CADe (weak recommendation).

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel, including three patient partners, 11 healthcare providers, and seven methodologists, deemed by MAGIC and The BMJ to have no relevant competing interests, developed this recommendation. For this guideline the panel took an individual patient approach. The panel started by defining the clinical question in PICO format, and prioritised outcomes including CRC incidence and mortality. Based on the linked systematic review and microsimulation study, the panel sought to balance the benefits, harms, and burdens of CADe and assumed patient preferences when making this recommendation UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The guideline panel found the benefits of CADe on critical outcomes, such as CRC incidence and post-colonoscopy cancer incidence, over a 10 year follow up period to be highly uncertain. Low certainty evidence suggests little to no impact on CRC-related mortality, while the potential burdens-including more frequent surveillance colonoscopies-are likely to affect many patients. Given the small and uncertain benefits and the likelihood of burdens, the panel issued a weak recommendation against routine CADe use.The panel acknowledges the anticipated variability in values and preferences among patients and clinicians when considering these uncertain benefits and potential burdens. In healthcare settings where CADe is available, individual decision making may be appropriate.

UPDATES

This is the first iteration of a living practice guideline. The panel will update this living guideline if ongoing evidence surveillance identifies new CADe trial data that substantially alters our conclusions about CRC incidence, mortality, or burdens, or studies that increase our certainty in values and preferences of individual patients. Updates will provide recommendations on the use of CADe from a healthcare systems perspective (including resource use, acceptability, feasibility, and equity), as well as the combined use of CADe and computer aided diagnosis (CADx). Users can access the latest guideline version and supporting evidence on MAGICapp, with updates periodically published in The BMJ.

Seven principles for integrating health equity considerations in the practice guideline enterprise

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Health equity aims to provide all individuals with equal and fair opportunities to achieve optimal health. Practice guidelines can play a pivotal role in advancing health equity; yet, few organizations use tools to systematically integrate health equity considerations. Thus, it is important to establish a foundation for practical tools to support the systematic integration of health equity considerations. This manuscript proposes principles for the integration of health equity considerations in the practice guideline enterprise.

METHODS

In the process of developing an equity extension for the GIN-McMaster guideline development checklist, we established a diverse advisory group of guideline developers, patients, members of the public experiencing inequities, health equity researchers, and guideline developers. We formulated the principles informed by a methodological review of guideline handbooks and iterative discussions between working group members.

RESULTS

We identified the following seven principles for integrating health equity considerations into the practice guideline enterprise: (1) articulating health equity, (2) a priori planning for considering health equity, (3) selection and engagement of individuals with lived experiences of inequities, (4) equity in evidence synthesis, (5) developing equity-informed recommendations, (6) inclusive knowledge mobilization, and (7) evaluating the impact of health equity considerations. We elaborated on the importance of the principles using published examples and mapped them to the different phases of the guideline development process.

CONCLUSION

Guideline developers should adhere to these principles in the development of guidelines and health equity guideline development and appraisal tools. These principles are the foundational concepts for developing health equity extension items for the GIN-McMaster guideline development checklist.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: executive summary

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related critical and acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). These evidence-based recommendations of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about using anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness; patients with COVID-19-related acute illness; and those being discharged from the hospital, who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representatives. The Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and MacGRADE Centres at McMaster University supported guideline development, including performing systematic reviews (up to June 2023). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty in the evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

This is an executive summary of 3 updated recommendations that have been published, which concludes the living phase of the guidelines. For patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, the panel issued conditional recommendations suggesting (a) prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation and (b) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation. For patients with COVID-19-related acute illness, conditional recommendations were suggested (a) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation, and (b) therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation suggesting against the use of postdischarge anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

These conditional recommendations were made based on low or very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials for patients with COVID-19.

Bee Venom Acupuncture in Traditional Korean Medicine: A Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Bee venom acupuncture (BVA) is used in traditional Korean medicine (TKM) for various diseases, but its evaluation within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has not been comprehensively reviewed. This study aimed to review TKM-CPGs to characterize the range of conditions for which BVA is recommended, summarize the level of evidence and recommendation grades, and assess the factors influencing the grades. Eighteen TKM-CPGs, including 30 BVA-related recommendations, were identified. Data on targeted diseases/symptoms, treatment protocols, evidence levels, and recommendation grades were extracted. The CPGs recommended BVA for musculoskeletal and neurological disorders in standalone or combined therapy. Most of the evidence for BVA recommendations was evaluated with low to moderate levels based on randomized controlled trials. The grades of recommendations were mostly B or C, indicating that BVA is advisable or potentially beneficial. Although the CPGs offer some guidance on treatment protocols for BVA, there remains a lack of detailed specifications, and we need to conduct additional research to provide evidence. Also, the heterogeneity of recommendations across different CPGs presents a challenge in establishing consistent clinical guidelines. Future research should focus on generating high-quality evidence and standardizing treatment regimens to support more robust recommendations for BVA in TKM clinical practice.

Procedural sedation competencies: a review and multidisciplinary international consensus statement on knowledge, skills, training, and credentialing

Procedural sedation is practised by a heterogeneous group of practitioners working in a wide array of settings. However, there are currently no accepted standards for the competencies a sedation practitioner should have, the content of sedation training programmes, and guidelines for credentialing. The multidisciplinary International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation sought to develop a consensus statement on the following: which competencies should medical or dental practitioners have for procedural sedation and how are they obtained, assessed, maintained, and privileged. Using the framework of Competency-Based Medical Education, the practice of procedural sedation was defined as a complex professional task requiring demonstrable integration of different competencies. For each question, the results of a literature review were synthetised into preliminary statements. Following an iterative Delphi review method, final consensus was reached. Using multispeciality consensus, we defined procedural sedation competence by identifying a set of core competencies in the domains of knowledge, skills, and attitudes across physical safety, effectiveness, psychological safety, and deliberate practice. In addition, we present a standardised framework for competency-based training and credentialing of procedural sedation practitioners.

Prevention of Episodic Migraine Headache Using Pharmacologic Treatments in Outpatient Settings: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline for clinicians caring for adults with episodic migraine headache (defined as 1 to 14 headache days per month) in outpatient settings.

METHODS

ACP based these recommendations on systematic reviews of the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments to prevent episodic migraine, patients' values and preferences, and economic evidence. ACP evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the following interventions: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (lisinopril), angiotensin II-receptor blockers (candesartan and telmisartan), antiseizure medications (valproate and topiramate), β-blockers (metoprolol and propranolol), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist-gepants (atogepant or rimegepant), CGRP monoclonal antibodies (eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine and venlafaxine), and a tricyclic antidepressant (amitriptyline). ACP used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to analyze the effects of pharmacologic treatment on the following outcomes: migraine frequency and duration, number of days medication was taken for acute treatment of migraine, frequency of migraine-related emergency department visits, migraine-related disability, quality of life and physical functioning, and discontinuations due to adverse events. In addition, adverse events were captured through U.S. Food and Drug Administration medication labels and eligible studies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In this guideline, ACP makes recommendations for clinicians to initiate monotherapy for episodic migraine prevention in nonpregnant adults in the outpatient setting as well as alternative approaches if initial treatments are not tolerated or result in an inadequate response. All 3 ACP recommendations have conditional strength and low-certainty evidence. Clinical considerations provide additional context for physicians and other clinicians.

The Canadian Coalition for Seniors' Mental Health Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD)

In Canada, approximately 730,000 people are currently living with dementia. Over 75% will experience behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). There is a lack of consensus on best practices for the assessment and management of BPSD. In 2024, the Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health (CCSMH) developed a Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for assessing and managing BPSD, specifically for agitation, depression, anxiety, psychosis, and sexual expressions of potential risk, and deprescribing antipsychotics and psychotropic medications. Development of the BPSD CPG followed the Guideline International Network (GIN)-McMaster Guideline Development checklist. The guideline is intended for people living with dementia, caregivers of people living with dementia, and health-care providers in community, outpatient, inpatient, long-term care, and other residential care settings. Recommendations were informed by a Canada-wide prioritization exercise to identify CPG topics and preferred terms for describing BPSD. A systematic review of existing dementia CPGs, an overview of systematic reviews on assessing and managing BPSD, and systematic reviews of tools for measuring psychosis, anxiety, and depressive symptoms in people living with dementia was undertaken, along with a rapid review of studies of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for reducing sexual expressions of potential risk in people living with dementia. Guideline panel members voted on recommendation strength and quality of evidence, per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. This CPG resulted in 11 good practice statements and 63 guideline recommendations that will inform BPSD best practices in a Canadian health-care context.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Clinical Practice Guideline on Surgical Management of Oligometastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of local consolidative therapy (LCT) in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving, with a preponderance of data supporting the benefits of such therapeutic approaches incorporating pulmonary resection for appropriately selected candidates. However, practices vary widely institutionally and regionally, and evidence-based guidelines are lacking.

METHODS

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons assembled a panel of thoracic surgical oncologists to evaluate and synthesize the available evidence regarding the role of pulmonary resection as LCT. Clinical and research questions of interest were identified, and a complete literature review was conducted. Best practice guidelines were developed accordingly.

RESULTS

The panel identified 7 areas of controversy, and data were assimilated to support the best recommended practices related to these clinical issues. Ultimately, a number of issues in this realm were found to have a high level of evidence to support the role for surgical therapy in patients with stage IV lung cancer. However, the nuances of how these operations are conducted remain in equipoise, without ample evidence to support the extent of resection or nodal dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Clear data exist to support the use of surgical resection of the primary lung tumor as LCT in stage IV lung cancer. Evidence-based recommendations have been provided to guide multidisciplinary teams on the implementation of treatment plans as well as to guide researchers on areas of ongoing need for further investigation.

Clinicians' experience with infographic summaries from the BMJ Rapid Recommendations: a qualitative user-testing study among residents and interns at a large teaching hospital in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians need trustworthy clinical practice guidelines to succeed with evidence-based diagnosis and treatment at the bedside. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations explore innovative ways to enhance dissemination and uptake, including multilayered interactive infographics linked to a digitally structured authoring and publication platform (the MAGICapp). We aimed to assess user experiences of physicians in training in various specialties when they interact with these infographics.

DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative user-testing study to assess user experience of a convenience sample of physicians in training. User testing was carried out through guided think-aloud sessions. We assessed six facets of user experience using a revised version of Morville's framework: usefulness, understandability, usability, credibility, desirability and identification.

SETTING

Setting include Geneva's University Hospital, a large teaching hospital in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants include a convenience sample of residents and interns without restriction regarding medical field or division of care.

RESULTS

Most users reported a positive experience. The infographics were understandable and useful to rapidly grasp the key elements of the recommendation, its rationale and supporting evidence, in a credible way. Some users felt intimidated by numbers or the amount of information, although they perceived there could be a learning curve while using generic formats. Plain language summaries helped complement the visuals but could be further highlighted. Despite their generally positive experience, several users had limited understanding of key GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) domains of the quality of evidence and remained uncertain by the implication of weak or conditional recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Our study allowed to identify several aspects of guideline formats that improve their understandability and usefulness. Guideline organisations can use our findings to adapt their presentation format to enhance their dissemination and uptake in clinical practice. Avenues for research include the interplay between infographics and the digital authoring platform, multiple comparisons and living guidelines.

Implicit bias in referrals to relational psychological therapies: review and recommendations for mental health services

Introduction

Timely and appropriate psychological treatment is an essential element required to address the growing burden of mental health issues, which has significant implications for individuals, society, and healthcare systems. However, research indicates that implicit biases among mental health professionals may influence referral decisions, potentially leading to disparities in access to relational psychological therapies. This study investigates bias in referral practices within mental health services, identifying key themes in referral procedures and proposing recommendations to mitigate bias and promote equitable access.

Methods

A systematic review of literature published between 2002 and 2022 was conducted, focusing on biases, referral practices, and relational psychological therapies. The search strategy involved full-text screening of studies meeting inclusion criteria, specifically those examining professional and organizational implicit bias in mental health referrals. Thematic synthesis was employed to analyze and categorize bias within these domains, providing a structured framework for understanding its impact on referral decision making processes.

Results

The search yielded 2,964 relevant papers, of which 77 underwent full-text screening. Ultimately, eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the review. The analysis revealed that bias development mechanisms in referral decisions occurred across five key domains: resource allocation, organizational procedures, clinical roles, decision-making, and referral preferences. These domains highlight organizational and practitioner-level factors contributing to disparities in access to psychological therapies.

Discussion

Findings suggest that implicit biases within referral processes can limit equitable access to psychological therapies, particularly relational therapies that emphasize therapeutic alliance and patient-centered care. This study provides recommendations to address these biases, including standardized referral guidelines, enhanced professional training on implicit bias, and improved oversight mechanisms within mental health services.

Applying current European periodontitis clinical practice guidelines is not feasible even for the richest countries in the world

Clinical practice guidelines aim to enhance the quality, equality and consistency of care but often demand more time than is available, rendering adherence impractical and exceeding feasible resources. The 2017 introduction of a new periodontal classification system by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) sought to refine clinical and epidemiological practices by serving as the basis for clinical practice guidelines and epidemiological investigations around the world. Following this classification, the EFP recommends supportive periodontal care visits every 3-12 months for all periodontitis cases. Given that in Norway, approximately 72% of the adult population are identified as periodontitis cases under the current AAP/EFP case definition, this poses a significant demand on healthcare resources. We calculated that between 60% and 70% of all estimated available working hours available for adult dental care provided by dentists and dental hygienists in Norway in 2017 would be spent on supportive periodontal care visits alone if the recommendations were to be met. This situation calls for a reevaluation of disease definitions and clinical practice guidelines to ensure they are practical, financially feasible and patient-outcome relevant.

Scoping review indicates heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating patient decision aids in the context of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To review the methods used to develop and integrate patient decision aids (PDAs) based on the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a scoping review covering bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase; searched until December 2023), gray literature, references, and expert consultations to identify eligible documents. Documents published from 2000 onwards and describing methods related to guideline-based PDA development or linking CPGs and PDAs were included. Two reviewers independently selected and analyzed the documents. Results were synthesized and presented narratively.

RESULTS

Based on 24 included documents, we categorized their methods into 4 topics. For topic (1), the selection of CPG recommendations for which PDAs are (most) needed, we found a total of 14 selection factors across n = 11 documents, with uncertainty/variability in patient preferences and trade-offs between options being the most frequently mentioned. Topic (2) (n = 24) covers methods for developing and/or updating guideline-based PDAs, such as forming a multidisciplinary development group, using CPGs and their evidence summaries along with other sources as the evidence base, and using digital solutions for semi-automated development and updating. Topic (3) (n = 12) covers methods for PDA quality assessment and/or user testing, such as finalizing and approving the PDAs after a review and feedback process from the CPG group and an iterative user testing process. Topic (4) (n = 20) covers methods for linking CPGs and PDAs, often through digital strategies.

CONCLUSION

We identified heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating PDAs based on CPG recommendations. Empirical testing is required to determine the most useful and practically feasible (combination of) methods. CPG organizations should focus on establishing adequate methods for linking CPG and PDA development to foster shared decision-making.

EAES rapid guideline: surgical management of complicated diverticulitis - with ESCP participation

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of complicated diverticulitis varies across Europe. EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline through an online questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations for key stakeholders involved in the treatment of complicated diverticulitis; to improve operative and perioperative outcomes, patient experience and quality of life through a systematic evidence-to-decision approach by a diverse, multidisciplinary panel.

METHODS

Informed by a linked individual participant data network meta-analysis of resection and primary anastomosis (PRA) versus Hartmann's resection (HR) versus laparoscopic lavage (LPL), a panel of general and colorectal surgeons, patient partners, trialists, and fellows appraised the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and CINeMA. The panel discussed the evidence using the evidence-to-decision framework during a synchronous consensus meeting. An asynchronous modified Delphi survey was used to establish consensus.

RESULTS

The panel suggests that patients with complicated diverticulitis without sepsis receive PRA over HR or LPL when there is availability of a surgeon with skills and experience in colorectal surgery. HR is suggested over PRA or LPL in the subgroups of septic, frail, as well as immunocompromised patients. These recommendations apply to patients with an indication for surgery. Surgeons and patients should first consider conditionally recommended interventions, then conditionally recommended against. Based on the evidence, the key benefit of PRA was a higher likelihood of not having a stoma at 1 year, with similar risks across comparisons. Conditional recommendations call for shared decision-making when considering management options. The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/7490 .

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-informed recommendations on the management of patients with complicated diverticulitis in accordance with the highest methodological standards through a structured framework informed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders.

Anesthesia Trauma Guidelines: A Systematic Review of Global Accessibility and Quality

This systematic review describes the available clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the anesthetic management of trauma and appraises the accessibility and quality of these resources. This review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted across 8 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CABI Digital Library, Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Google Scholar, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) for guidelines from 2010 to 2023. Two independent reviewers assessed guideline eligibility and extracted data, which were audited by a third reviewer. Data regarding author demographics, accessibility, clinical topics, and quality were collected. The quality of guidelines was evaluated according to the National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument. A total of 2426 articles were identified, of which 165 met eligibility criteria and were included. Guidelines were developed by 122 professional societies and authors from 51 countries. By region, Europe contributed with the most authors (61%), while Africa had the fewest (4%). Most CPGs were developed by authors from high-income countries (HIC) and only 12% had a first or last author from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The United States was the country with the most guideline authors. While 70% were open access, the average cost for paid access was US$36.61. Among the 8 languages identified, English was the most common. The most common topics were blood and fluid management, shock, and airway management. The overall quality of included guidelines was considered moderately high, with an average NEATS score of 3.13 of 5. Quality scores were lowest for involvement of patient perspectives, plans for updating, and presence of a methodologist. On logistic regression analysis, the involvement of a methodological expert was the only predictor of having a high-quality NEATS score, with no association observed with open accessibility, English language, society endorsement, first author from a HIC, or a multidisciplinary group composition. Though many countries and societies have contributed to the development of anesthesia CPGs for trauma, there has been a disproportionate lack of representation from LMICs, where the burden of trauma mortality is highest. In this study, we identify barriers to accessibility and areas for improving future guideline quality. We recommend ongoing efforts to incorporate perspectives from diverse settings and to increase the availability of high-quality, open-access guidelines to improve worldwide health outcomes in trauma.

Availability and quality assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines on orthoplastic surgery treatment of open fractures of the lower limb using AGREE II tool: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Orthoplastic surgery, which combines orthopedic and plastic surgery principles, plays a crucial role in the treatment of open fractures of the lower limb. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are valuable tools for standardizing and improving patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the availability and quality of international CPGs for orthoplastic treatment of open fractures of the lower limb. A secondary objective was to provide a detailed analysis of the specific recommendations by comparing them among different CPGs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in 2023 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines across major medical databases and gray literature. Inclusion criteria focused on guidelines specific to orthoplastic surgery for lower limb open fractures. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, a widely accepted instrument for guideline assessment, was utilized to evaluate the methodological rigor and transparency of the selected guidelines.

RESULTS

Three orthoplasty CPGs have been identified, 2 of which were judged reliable according to the AGREE II methodology. Orthoplastic recommendations are no more than 7 per CPG. Consistent agreement was observed on the timing of debridement, the importance of early fixation, and definitive coverage.

CONCLUSION

CPGs are critical to set up clinical pathways that are safe and evidence-based. Only 3 international CPGs address orthoplastic treatment of open lower limb fractures, 2 of which are judged reliable according to methodology. Therefore, it becomes essential to develop and disseminate high-quality, evidence-based guidelines, which are critical to improving patient outcomes and standardizing clinical practice worldwide.

GRADE Notes 4: how to use GRADE when there is "no" evidence? A case study of using unpublished registry data

OBJECTIVES

Trustworthy guidelines rely on systematic reviews of the best available published evidence. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) Working Group has provided guidance about developing evidence-based recommendations when published direct evidence is lacking. In this article, we provide a case example as an alternate solution to generate primary data using registries prior to collecting expert evidence.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

When direct published literature was absent, a team of clinical and statistical expertise can utilize registries, when available, for primary data generation in a way that allows for answering clinically important questions.

RESULTS

Out of 54 questions prioritized by a guideline development for the prevention and management of peritoneal dialysis-associated infections in children, 25 questions had no evidence to inform them. The use of unpublished registry data served as a primary source of information to answer 12 of the 25 questions and provided additional information for nine questions for which at least one published study was available.

CONCLUSION

This article extends our previous GRADE note for scenarios of "no" evidence, highlighting the value of generating primary evidence using unpublished registry data when relevant registries and resources allow. This approach can be of particular value when addressing conditions that are rare or from populations that are considered vulnerable, while emphasizing the importance of being transparent regarding the reporting of raw data and the analysis plan in the event of reporting unpublished work.

Contrasting Approaches in the Implementation of GRADE Methodology in Guidelines for Haemophilia and Von Willebrand Disease

INTRODUCTION

The 2024 ISTH clinical practice guideline (CPG) for treatment of congenital haemophilia, the NBDF-McMaster Guideline on Care Models for Haemophilia Management, and ASH ISTH NBDF WFH guidelines on the diagnosis and management of VWD all utilised GRADE methodology.

AIM

Discuss missed opportunities and the methodological approach of the ISTH Guideline in contrast to how GRADE was previously applied in rare diseases.

METHODS

Critically analyse the methodology of each guideline along with best practices in the use of GRADE. Where applicable, the WFH Guidelines for the Management of Haemophilia were analysed.

RESULTS

Important differentiating features in applying GRADE were identified. Where a strong evidence base is lacking, data other than those from randomized controlled trials, which may not always be justified, need to be considered, including incorporation of outcomes important to people living with the disease. Justification and stakeholder input to prioritize questions requiring a new guideline, panel composition with necessary patient participation and content expertise were also found to be significant differentiating features.

CONCLUSION

The puristic approach taken in the ISTH Guideline development process, without consideration of accepted adaptations to GRADE implementation, created a missed opportunity for progressing haemophilia care, leading to guideline recommendations that have been widely deemed invalid and obsolete by expert healthcare professionals and by those living with the condition, the very people who are expected to implement or bear the impact of the recommendations. Lessons learnt from this comparative analysis should guide future guideline development and encourage collaboration to further advance haemophilia.

Guidance for engagement in health guideline development: A scoping review

Background

Health guideline developers engage with interested people and groups to ensure that guidelines and their recommendations are relevant and useful to those who will be affected by them. These 'interest-holders' include patients, payers/purchasers of health services, payers of health research, peer review editors, product makers, programme managers, policymakers, providers, principal investigators, and the public. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and McMaster University Guideline Development Checklist describes 146 steps of the guideline process organized into 18 topics. While one topic focuses on engagement, it does not describe how to engage with interest-holders. In addition, interest-holder input could be sought throughout the guideline development process. This scoping review is part of a series of four related reviews. The three other reviews address barriers and facilitators to engagement in guideline development, managing conflicts of interest in guideline development, and assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development. The four reviews will inform the development of guidance for multi-interest-holder engagement in guideline development; the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for Engagement.

Objectives

The objective of this scoping review is to identify, describe, and summarise existing guidance and methods for multi-interest-holder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

Search Methods

We conducted one comprehensive search for studies of engagement in guidelines to meet the inclusion criteria of one or more of the four systematic reviews in this series. We searched MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), PsycInfo (OVID) and SCOPUS databases up to September 2022. We did not include limits for date, study design, or language. We searched websites of agencies and organizations that engage interest-holder groups, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), CIHR Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Be Part of Research, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the PatientCentred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We handsearched the websites of guideline producing agencies. We solicited additional grey literature from the members of the MuSE Consortium.

Selection Criteria

Studies were included in this review if they reported on engagement of any of our identified groups, patients, payers/funders of research, payers/purchasers of health services, policymakers, programme managers, providers, principal investigators/researchers, peer review editors, product makers in the development of a health guideline. Titles and abstracts of identified citations were screened independently, in duplicate. The full text of potentially relevant papers were screened for eligibility into one or more of the four reviews in the series. Screening was done independently, by two reviewers. The team held weekly meetings with all reviewers involved in screening to discuss and resolve conflicts.

Data Collection and Analysis

Two reviewers extracted relevant data into a pilot-tested data extraction form using Excel. We used the GIN-McMaster guideline development checklist as a framework for extracting the available guidance for each of our identified interest-holder groups throughout the development process. We presented descriptive statistics of the number of papers reporting guidance for each groups across the steps of the guideline process. We synthesized the relevant text using a qualitative meta-summary approach.

Main Results

We included 16 papers (from 17 reports). These papers were from Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA, and eight papers were international (countries not specified). The papers provided guidance for at least one of our interest-holder groups for at least one stage of guideline development. We mapped this guidance to the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist to identify the available guidance for each of our interest-holder groups across all stages of the guideline development process. Guidance was available for patient engagement in 15 of the 16 papers. At least two papers provided guidance for each of the 18 topics of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. For healthcare providers, 9 papers provided guidance for their engagement across 10 of the 18 guideline development topics. Guidance for engaging with the public was provided for 14 of the 18 topics and reported in 4 of our included papers. For payers/purchasers of health services, policymakers, product makers, programme managers, and principal investigators, 2-3 papers provided guidance for these groups across 4-7 topics of the GIN-McMaster checklist. We did not identify any specific guidance for payers of health research or for editors of peer-reviewed journals.

Authors' Conclusions

Guidance for interst-holder engagement in guidelines is available but has focused primarily on patients. We will utilize the guidance identified in this scoping review to inform the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for engagement. Combined with the information obtained from the other systematic reviews in this series, we will address the gaps in guidance for the other identified interest-holder groups.

A novel way to integrate economic information into clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines are widely used to support clinical decision making, so they could also provide economic information about medical interventions to promote cost-conscious health care. We developed a new way to integrate economic information into the Finnish Current Care Guidelines.

METHODS

Our development team consisted of clinical guideline specialists and health economists. We first looked at integration of economic information in clinical guidelines of other countries. Our key principle was that economic information should be integrated only to mutually exclusive medical interventions where the extensive choice of one the options will yield a significant cost differences on the national level. For the comparative effectiveness information of the interventions, we primarily looked for network meta-analyses. We then combined the effectiveness information presented as number needed to treat with prices or costs for the interventions and present the result as a cost per responder, which reflects both effectiveness and price or costs.

RESULTS

We introduce a process to integrate and present the economic information of the selected interventions in tables in the Current Care Guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel way to integrate economic information into the Current Care Guidelines is an effort to support cost-conscious clinical decision making to promote cost-effective health care in Finland. This process is general and could be used in clinical guidelines in other countries as well.

Fostering Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Health Care Professionals in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Protocol for a Project to Develop and Test a Tool for Guideline Developers

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to assist health care professionals in medical decision-making, but they often lack effective integration of shared decision-making (SDM) principles to reflect patient values and preferences, particularly in the context of preference-sensitive CPG recommendations. To address this shortcoming and foster SDM through CPGs, the integration of patient decision aids (PDAs) into CPGs has been proposed as an important strategy. However, methods for systematically identifying and prioritizing CPG recommendations relevant to SDM and related decision support tools are currently lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the project is to develop (1) a tool for systematically identifying and prioritizing CPG recommendations for which SDM is considered particularly relevant and (2) a platform for PDAs to support practical SDM implementation.

METHODS

The project consists of 6 work packages (WPs). It is embedded in the German health care context but has an international focus. In WP 1, we will conduct a scoping review in bibliographic databases and gray literature sources to identify methods used to foster SDM via PDAs in the context of CPGs. In WP 2, we will conduct semistructured interviews with CPG experts to better understand the concepts of preference sensitivity and identify strategies for fostering SDM through CPGs. WP 3, a modified Delphi study including surveys and focus groups with SDM experts, aims to define and operationalize preference sensitivity. Based on the results of the Delphi study, we will develop a methodology for prioritizing key questions in CPGs. In WP 4, the tool will be developed. A list of relevant items to identify CPG recommendations for which SDM is most relevant will be created, tested, and iteratively refined, accompanied by the development of a user manual. In WP 5, a platform for creating and digitizing German-language PDAs will be developed to support the practical application of SDM during clinical encounters. WP 6 will conclude the project by testing the tool with newly developed and revised CPGs.

RESULTS

The Brandenburg Medical School Ethics Committee approved the project (165122023-ANF). An international multidisciplinary advisory board is involved to guide the tool development on CPGs and SDM. Patient partners are involved throughout the project, considering the essential role of the patient perspective in SDM. As of February 20, 2024, we are currently assessing literature references to determine eligibility for inclusion in the scoping review (WP 1). We expect the project to be completed by December 31, 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool will enable CPG developers to systematically incorporate aspects of SDM into CPG development, thereby providing guideline-based support for the patient-practitioner interaction. Together, the tool for CPGs and the platform for PDAs will create a systematic link between CPGs, SDM, and PDAs, which may facilitate SDM in clinical practice.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/57611.

Multi-Society Guideline on Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC: Methodology and Overview of the Results

To provide evidence-based guidelines about Peritoneal Surface Malignancy (PSM) treatment for the Peritoneal Surfaces Oncology Group International. The GRADE ADOLOPMENT method was used to adapt recommendations from the Italian Medical Oncology Association Guideline on PSM. Seven scientific society were involved to form five guideline panels composed of 28 medical professionals from 14 countries. Panelists prioritized 7 relevant questions. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence and summarized information. The panel agreed on seven recommendations.

GRADE guidance 39: using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT.

METHODS

Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval.

RESULTS

This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others.

CONCLUSION

This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources.

Application of the PANELVIEW instrument to evaluate the guideline development process of the German polytrauma guideline

BACKGROUND

PANELVIEW is an instrument for evaluating the appropriateness of the process, methods, and outcome of guideline development and the satisfaction of the guideline group with these steps.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the guideline development process of the German guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries ('German polytrauma guideline') from the perspective of the guideline group, and to identify areas where this process may be improved in the future.

METHODS

We administered PANELVIEW to the participants of the 2022 update of the German polytrauma guideline. All guideline group members, including delegates of participating medical societies, steering group members, authors of guideline chapters, the chair, and methodological lead, were invited to participate. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comments received were categorised by domains/items of the tool.

RESULTS

After the first, second, and last consensus conference, the guideline group was invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Response rates were 36% (n/N = 13/36), 40% (12/30), and 37% (20/54), respectively. The mean scores for items ranged between 5.1 and 6.9 on a scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). Items with mean scores below 6.0 were related to (1) administration, (2) consideration of patients' views, perspectives, values, and preferences, and (3) the discussion of research gaps and needs for future research.

CONCLUSION

The PANELVIEW tool showed that the guideline group was satisfied with most aspects of the guideline development process. Areas for improvement of the process were identified. Strategies to improve response rates should be explored.

Values and preferences in COVID-19 public health guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Internationally accepted standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in values and preferences. Considering values and preferences respects the rights of citizens to participate in health decision-making and ensures that guidelines align with the needs and priorities of the communities they are intended to serve. Early anecdotal reports suggest that COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. To capture and characterize whether and how COVID-19 public health guidelines considered values and preferences.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of COVID-19 public health guidelines. We searched the eCOVID-19 RecMap platform-a comprehensive international catalog of COVID-19 guidelines-up to July 2023 and the Guidelines International Network Library-an international library of guidelines published or endorsed by Guidelines International Network member organizations-up to May 2024. We included guidelines that made recommendations addressing vaccination, masking, isolation, lockdowns, travel restrictions, contact tracing, infection surveillance, and school closures. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to review guidelines for consideration of values and preferences.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 130 eligible guidelines, of which 41 (31.5%) were published by national organizations, 70 (53.8%) by international organizations, and 19 (14.6%) by professional societies and associations. Twenty-eight (21.5%) guidelines considered values and preferences. Among guidelines that considered values and preferences, most did so to assess the acceptability of recommendations (23; 82.1%) and by referencing published research (25; 89.3%). Guidelines only occasionally engaged laypersons as part of the guideline development group (8; 28.6%). None of the guidelines performed systematic reviews of the literature addressing values and preferences.

CONCLUSION

Most COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. When they were considered, it was often suboptimal. Disregard for values and preferences might have partly contributed to divisive and unpopular COVID-19 policies. Given the possibility of future health emergencies, we recommend guideline developers identify efficient and effective methods for considering values and preferences in crisis situations.

[International Multi-stakeholder Consensus Statement on Clinical Trial Integrity]

BACKGROUND

Science integrity initiatives require specific recommendations for randomised clinical trials (RCT).

OBJECTIVE

To prepare a set of statements for RCT integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus.

METHODS

The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percent of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting.

RESULTS

There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from 5 continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representative, industry representative, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with 8 additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n=6), design and approval (n=11), conduct and monitoring (n=19), reporting of protocols and findings (n=20), post-publication concerns (n=12), and future research and development (n=13).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.

Recommendations to improve use and dissemination of patient versions of oncological clinical practice guidelines in Germany: results of a multi-stakeholder workshop

BACKGROUND

Oncological patients have high information needs that are often unmet. Patient versions of oncological clinical practice guidelines (PVG) translate clinical practice guidelines into laypersons' language and might help to address patients' information needs. Currently, 30 oncological PVG have been published in Germany and more are being developed. Following a large multi-phase project on oncological PVGs in Germany, recommendations to improve use and dissemination of PVG were adopted in a multi-stakeholder workshop.

METHODS

Organisations representing users of PVGs (patients, medical personnel, and multipliers), creators, initiators/funding organisations of PVGs, and organisations with methodological expertise in the development of clinical practice guidelines or in patient health information were invited to participate. The workshop included a World Café for discussion of pre-selected recommendations and structured consensus procedure for of all recommendations. Recommendations with agreement of > 75% were approved, and in case of ≤ 75% agreement, recommendations were rejected.

RESULTS

The workshop took place on 24th April 2023 in Cologne, Germany. Overall, 23 people from 24 organisations participated in the discussion. Of 35 suggested recommendations 28 recommendations reached consensus and were approved. The recommendations referred to the topics dissemination (N = 13), design and format (N = 7), (digital) links (N = 5), digitalisation (N = 4), up-to-dateness (N = 3), and use of the PVG in collaboration between healthcare providers and patients (N = 3).

CONCLUSION

The practical recommendations consider various perspectives and can help to improve use and dissemination of oncological PVG in Germany. The inclusion of different stakeholders could facilitate the transfer of the results into practice.

A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) need robust, up-to-date evidence to deliver high-quality patient care. There is limited literature regarding the role of international GP professional organizations in developing and publishing clinical guidelines to support GPs clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVE

To identify evidence-based guidance and clinical guidelines produced by GP professional organizations and summarize their content, structure, and methods of development and dissemination.

METHODS

Scoping review of GP professional organizations following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Four databases were searched and a grey literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were: (i) evidence-based guidance documents or clinical guidelines produced de novo by a national GP professional organization, (ii) developed to support GPs clinical care, and (iii) published in the last 10 years. GP professional organizations were contacted to provide supplementary information. A narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Six GP professional organizations and 60 guidelines were included. The most common de novo guideline topics were mental health, cardiovascular disease, neurology, pregnancy and women's health and preventive care. All guidelines were developed using a standard evidence-synthesis method. All included documents were disseminated through downloadable pdfs and peer review publications. GP professional organizations indicated that they generally collaborate with or endorse guidelines developed by national or international guideline producing bodies.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this scoping review provide an overview of de novo guideline development by GP professional organizations and can support collaboration between GP organizations worldwide thus reducing duplication of effort, facilitating reproducibility, and identifying areas of standardization.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JXQ26.

Assessing Patient Values and Preferences to Inform the 2023 American College of Rheumatology/American College of Chest Physicians Interstitial Lung Disease Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Patient engagement is critical to clinical practice guideline (CPG) development. This work presents our approach to ascertaining patients' values and preferences to inform the American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study of a purposefully sampled Patient Panel using a modified content analytic approach. The study team reviewed text transcripts from the Patient Panel discussion to identify themes and develop a clustered thematic schema.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (75% women) participated, with a mean age of 53 years (range 33-73). Patients had one or more SARDs: systemic sclerosis (38%), Sjögren disease (38%), idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (33%), rheumatoid arthritis (24%), and mixed connective tissue disease (10%). We identified 10 themes in 4 thematic clusters: communication, screening and monitoring, treatment goals, and treatment adverse effects. Patients prioritized recognizing ILD symptoms, importance of ILD screening and close monitoring, goals of survival and improving quality of life, and willingness to accept treatment risks provided that there is close communication with providers. Patient representatives shared patients' priorities and insight at the Voting Panel meeting, influencing multiple guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Patient engagement fosters a holistic approach to CPG development, leading to recommendations aiming for the best clinical outcomes while prioritizing outcomes important for patients. The patient-identified themes played a critical role in ILD guideline development and provide core elements for shared decision-making as clinicians make management and therapeutic decisions with patients with SARD-associated ILD.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation incorporate the most recent evidence for surgical ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion in different clinical scenarios. Substantial new evidence regarding the risks and benefits of surgical left atrial appendage occlusion and the long-term benefits of surgical ablation has been produced in the last 5 years. Compared with the 2017 clinical practice guideline, the current update has an emphasis on surgical ablation in first-time, nonemergent cardiac surgery and its long-term benefits, an extension of the recommendation to perform surgical ablation in all patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing first-time, nonemergent cardiac surgery, and a new class I recommendation for left atrial appendage occlusion in all patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing first-time, nonemergent cardiac surgery. Further guidance is provided for patients with structural heart disease and atrial fibrillation being considered for transcatheter valve repair or replacement, as well as patients in need of isolated left atrial appendage management who are not candidates for surgical ablation. The importance of a multidisciplinary team assessment, treatment planning, and long-term follow-up are reiterated in this clinical practice guideline with a class I recommendation, along with the other recommendations from the 2017 guidelines that remained unchanged in their class of recommendation and level of evidence.

The Utilization of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Stroke Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Stroke guideline statements are important references for clinicians due to the rapidly evolving nature of treatments. Guideline statements should be informed by up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) because they provide the highest level of evidence. To investigate the utilization of SRs/MAs in stroke management guidelines, we conducted a literature review of guidelines and extracted relevant information regarding SRs/MAs.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in PubMed with supplementation using the Trip medical database with the term "stroke" as the target population, followed by using the filter "guidelines". We extracted the number of included SRs/MAs, the years of publication, the country of origin, and other characteristics of interest. Descriptive statistics were generated using the R software version 4.2.1.

RESULTS

We included 27 guideline statements. The median number of overall SRs or MAs within the guidelines was 4.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 2-9). For MAs only, the median number included in the guidelines was 3.0 (IQR = 2.0-5.5). Canadian guidelines had the oldest citations, with a median gap of 12.0 (IQR = 5.2-18.0) years for the oldest citation, followed by European (median = 12; IQR = 9.5-13.5) and US (median = 10.0; IQR = 5.2-16) guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke guideline writing groups and issuing bodies should devote greater effort to the inclusion of up-to-date SRs/MAs in their guideline statements so that clinicians can reference recent data with the highest level of evidence.

Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the inclusion of individuals' perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women's perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs.

RESULTS

We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women's perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of women's perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.

New horizons in clinical practice guidelines for use with older people

Globally, more people are living into advanced old age, with age-associated frailty, disability and multimorbidity. Achieving equity for all ages necessitates adapting healthcare systems. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have an important place in adapting evidence-based medicine and clinical care to reflect these changing needs. CPGs can facilitate better and more systematic care for older people. But they can also present a challenge to patient-centred care and shared decision-making when clinical and/or socioeconomic heterogeneity or personal priorities are not reflected in recommendations or in their application. Indeed, evidence is often lacking to enable this variability to be reflected in guidance. Evidence is more likely to be lacking about some sections of the population. Many older adults are at the intersection of many factors associated with exclusion from traditional clinical evidence sources with higher incidence of multimorbidity and disability compounded by poorer healthcare access and ultimately worse outcomes. We describe these challenges and illustrate how they can adversely affect CPG scope, the evidence available and its summation, the content of CPG recommendations and their patient-centred implementation. In all of this, we take older adults as our focus, but much of what we say will be applicable to other marginalised groups. Then, using the established process of formulating a CPG as a framework, we consider how these challenges can be mitigated, with particular attention to applicability and implementation. We consider why CPG recommendations on the same clinical areas may be inconsistent and describe approaches to ensuring that CPGs remain up to date.

Axial spondyloarthritis guidelines - aiming for maximum impact

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) focusing on methodology, guideline quality, and implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS/EULAR) and Pan-American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) recently published axSpA CPGs and updates of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (ACR/SAA/SPARTAN) and Asia-Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) CPGs are expected. GRADE has emerged as the dominant framework for CPG development and has been used by three of the four international axSpA guidelines. Notable differences exist among these guidelines in the way that the recommendations are presented. Two of the four acknowledge the need for implementation strategies, but little detail about this is provided. The few studies that have evaluated the implementation of axSpA CPGs have identified poor adherence to recommendations on physical therapy/exercise and disease activity monitoring. Implementation science has identified many barriers and facilitators affecting guideline uptake, including those related to healthcare professionals and to the guidelines themselves. Creation of a tailored implementation plan simultaneously with the CPG is recommended.

SUMMARY

While methodological rigor in the creation of evidence-based recommendations is the focus of CPG development, recommendations must be presented in a user-friendly format that makes them easy to apply. 'Living guidelines' could facilitate keeping content up to date. Implementation is critical for the success of a CPG and should be emphasized in future axSpA guideline updates. Further research is needed to better understand the factors impacting the successful implementation of axSpA CPGs.

Best practice for the selection, design and implementation of UK Kidney Association guidelines: a modified Delphi consensus approach

BACKGROUND

Despite research into how to effectively implement evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice, a lack of standardisation in the commissioning and development of clinical practice guidelines can lead to inconsistencies and gaps in implementation. This research aimed to ascertain how topics in kidney care worthy of guideline development within the UK should be chosen, prioritised, designed and implemented.

METHODS

Following a modified Delphi methodology, a multi-disciplinary panel of experts in kidney healthcare from across the UK developed 35 statements on the issues surrounding the selection, development and implementation of nephrology guidelines. Consensus with these statements was determined by agreement using an online survey; the consensus threshold was defined as 75% agreement.

RESULTS

419 responses were received. Of the 364 healthcare practitioners (HCPs), the majority had over 20 years of experience in their role (n=123) and most respondents were nephrologists (n=95). Of the 55 non-clinical respondents, the majority were people with kidney disease (n=41) and the rest were their carers or family. Participants were from across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Consensus between HCPs was achieved in 32/35 statements, with 28 statements reaching ≥90% agreement. Consensus between patients and patient representatives was achieved across all 20 statements, with 13/20 reaching ≥90% agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results have provided the basis for six recommendations to improve the selection, design and implementation of guidelines. Actioning these recommendations will help improve the accessibility of, and engagement with, clinical guidelines, contributing to the continuing development of best practice in UK kidney care.

Distinguishing ASH clinical practice guidelines from other forms of ASH clinical advice

ABSTRACT

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops a variety of resources that provide guidance to clinicians on the diagnosis and management of blood diseases. These resources include clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and other forms of clinical advice. Although both ASH CPGs and other forms of clinical advice provide recommendations, they differ with respect to the methods underpinning their development, the principal type of recommendations they offer, their transparency and concordance with published evidence, and the time and resources required for their development. It is crucial that end users be aware of the differences between CPGs and other forms of clinical advice and that producers and publishers of these resources use clear and unambiguous terminology to facilitate their distinction. The objective of this article is to highlight the similarities and differences between ASH CPGs and other forms of ASH clinical advice and discuss the implications of these differences for end users.

Methodological proposals for developing trustworthy recommendations of integrative Chinese-Western medicine

Background

To refine the methods of developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for integrative Chinese-Western medicine (ICWM), promoting the formation of trustworthy, implementable recommendations that integrate the strengths of Chinese and Western medicine.

Methods

Using a nominal group technique (NGT) approach, a multidisciplinary expert panel was established. The panel identified key methodological issues in ICWM-CPG development through literature review and iterative discussions, and formulated methodological proposals to address these issues. The final set of proposals was achieved through consensus among the panel members.

Results

The collaborative effort resulted in the identification of five pivotal methodological issues and the subsequent establishment of 22 specific recommendations. These encompass strict adherence to renowned standards, such as those proposed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), the employment of methodologies like the GRADE approach and RIGHT statement, the strategic constitution of a balanced development group, the adept identification of ICWM-focused clinical inquiries, the nuanced integration of diverse evidence sources, and the detailed crafting of transparent, implementable recommendations.

Conclusions

This study concentrates on the most crucial and prevalent methodological issues in ICWM-CPG development, proposing a series of recommendations. These suggestions result from a multidisciplinary expert consensus, aiming to provide methodological guidance for ICWM-CPG developers, building upon the current foundational methodologies.

Eating Disorders In weight-related Therapy (EDIT) Collaboration: rationale and study design

The cornerstone of obesity treatment is behavioural weight management, resulting in significant improvements in cardio-metabolic and psychosocial health. However, there is ongoing concern that dietary interventions used for weight management may precipitate the development of eating disorders. Systematic reviews demonstrate that, while for most participants medically supervised obesity treatment improves risk scores related to eating disorders, a subset of people who undergo obesity treatment may have poor outcomes for eating disorders. This review summarises the background and rationale for the formation of the Eating Disorders In weight-related Therapy (EDIT) Collaboration. The EDIT Collaboration will explore the complex risk factor interactions that precede changes to eating disorder risk following weight management. In this review, we also outline the programme of work and design of studies for the EDIT Collaboration, including expected knowledge gains. The EDIT studies explore risk factors and the interactions between them using individual-level data from international weight management trials. Combining all available data on eating disorder risk from weight management trials will allow sufficient sample size to interrogate our hypothesis: that individuals undertaking weight management interventions will vary in their eating disorder risk profile, on the basis of personal characteristics and intervention strategies available to them. The collaboration includes the integration of health consumers in project development and translation. An important knowledge gain from this project is a comprehensive understanding of the impact of weight management interventions on eating disorder risk.

Therapeutic drug monitoring guidelines in oncology: what do we know and how to move forward? Insights from a systematic review

Background

Compared with anti-infective drugs, immunosuppressants and other fields, the application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in oncology is somewhat limited.

Objective

We aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of TDM guidelines for antineoplastic drugs and to promote the development of individualized drug therapy in oncology.

Design

This study type is a systematic review.

Data sources and methods

This study was performed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Databases including PubMed, Embase, the official websites of TDM-related associations and Chinese databases were comprehensively searched up to March 2023. Two investigators independently screened the literature and extracted data. The methodological and reporting quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT), respectively. Recommendations and quality evaluation results were presented by visual plots. This study was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022325661).

Results

A total of eight studies were included, with publication years ranging from 2014 to 2022. From the perspective of guideline development, two guidelines were developed using evidence-based methods. Among the included guidelines, four guidelines were for cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs, three for small molecule kinase inhibitors, and one for antineoplastic biosimilars. Currently available guidelines and clinical practice provided recommendations of individualized medication in oncology based on TDM, as well as influencing factors. With regard to methodological quality based on AGREE II, the average overall quality score was 55.21%. As for the reporting quality by RIGHT evaluation, the average reporting rate was 53.57%.

Conclusion

From the perspective of current guidelines, TDM in oncology is now being expanded from cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs to newer targeted treatments. Whereas, the types of antineoplastic drugs involved are still small, and there is still room for quality improvement. Furthermore, the reflected gaps warrant future studies into the exposure-response relationships and population pharmacokinetics models.

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period.

METHODS

This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%.

RESULTS

We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline to update recommendations on newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes. This clinical guideline is based on the best available evidence for effectiveness, comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and costs.

METHODS

This clinical guideline is based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and harms of newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, a GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins, used either as monotherapy or in combination with other medications. The Clinical Guidelines Committee prioritized the following outcomes, which were evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach: all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progression of chronic kidney disease, serious adverse events, and severe hypoglycemia. Weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis and were not rated with GRADE.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this clinical guideline is physicians and other clinicians. The population is nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP recommends adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). • Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure. • Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP recommends against adding a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).