Developing and Testing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP)-A systematic review of the methodological quality of contact dermatitis clinical practice guidelines

The Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer's Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include 'strength and wording of recommendations', 'applicability', 'updating' and 'external review'. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.

Same evidence different recommendations: a methodological assessment of transatlantic guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify methodological variations leading to varied recommendations between the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) valvular heart disease guidelines and to suggest foundational steps towards standardizing guideline development.

METHODS

An in-depth analysis was conducted to evaluate the methodologies used in developing the transatlantic guidelines for managing valvular heart disease. The evaluation was benchmarked against the standards proposed by the Institute of Medicine.

RESULTS

Substantial discrepancies were noted in the methodologies utilized in development processes, including Writing Committee composition, evidence evaluation, conflict of interest management and voting processes. Furthermore, despite their mutual differences, both methodologies demonstrate notable deviations from the Institute of Medicine standards in several essential areas, including literature review and evidence grading. These dual variances likely influenced divergent treatment recommendations. For example, the ESC/EACTS recommends transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for patients with chronic severe mitral regurgitation ineligible for mitral valve surgery, while the ACC/AHA recommends transcatheter edge-to-edge repair based on anatomy, regardless of surgical risk. ESC/EACTS guidelines recommend a mechanical aortic prosthesis for patients under 60, while ACC/AHA guidelines recommend it for patients under 50. Notably, the ACC/AHA and ESC/EACTS guidelines have differing age cut-offs for surgical over transcatheter aortic valve replacement (<65 and <75 years, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in methodologies for developing clinical practice guidelines have resulted in different treatment recommendations that may significantly impact global practice patterns. Standardization of essential processes is vital to increase the uniformity and credibility of clinical practice guidelines, ultimately improving healthcare quality, reducing variability and enhancing trust in modern medicine.

Use of Topical Anesthetics in the Management of Patients With Simple Corneal Abrasions: Consensus Guidelines From the American College of Emergency Physicians

The management of corneal abrasions has largely excluded dispensing topical local anesthetics for home use due to concern for corneal toxicity. We have reviewed and critically appraised the available literature evidence regarding the use of topical anesthetics in patients with simple corneal abrasions. Using sequential Delphi review, we have developed these clinical guidelines. Herein are evidentiary summaries and consensus recommendations for 8 specific relevant questions. Our key observation is that for only simple corneal abrasions, as diagnosed and treated in accordance with the full protocol described herein, it appears safe to prescribe or otherwise provide a commercial topical anesthetic (ie, proparacaine, tetracaine, oxybuprocaine) for use up to every 30 minutes as needed during the first 24 hours after presentation, as long as no more than 1.5 to 2 mL total (an expected 24-hour supply) is dispensed and any remainder is discarded after 24 hours. Importantly, although published findings suggest absent harm for short courses, more rigorous studies with a greater cumulative sample size and ophthalmologic follow-up are needed.

Protocol for the Development of the Fourth Edition of the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline Using GRADE Methods

ABSTRACT

The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, and the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance are commencing a new (fourth) edition of the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline . The fourth edition of the International Pressure Injury (PI) Guideline will be developed using GRADE methods to ensure a rigorous process consistent with evolving international standards. Clinical questions will address prevention and treatment of PIs, identification of individuals at risk of PIs, assessment of skin and tissues, and PI assessment. Implementation considerations supporting application of the guidance in clinical practice will be developed. The guideline development process will be overseen by a guideline governance group and methodologist; the guideline development team will include health professionals, educators, researchers, individuals with or at risk of PIs, and informal carers.This article presents the project structure and processes to be used to undertake a systematic literature search, appraise risk of bias of the evidence, and aggregate research findings. The methods detail how certainty of evidence will be evaluated; presentation of relative benefits, risks, feasibility, acceptability, and resource requirements; and how recommendations will be made and graded. The methods outline transparent processes of development that combine scientific research with best clinical practice. Strong involvement from health professionals, educators, individuals with PIs, and informal carers will enhance the guideline's relevance and facilitate uptake. This update builds on previous editions to ensure consistency and comparability, with methodology changes improving the guideline's quality and clarity.

Improving the Quality and Utility of Electronic Health Record Data through Ontologies

The translational research community, in general, and the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) community, in particular, share the vision of repurposing EHRs for research that will improve the quality of clinical practice. Many members of these communities are also aware that electronic health records (EHRs) suffer limitations of data becoming poorly structured, biased, and unusable out of original context. This creates obstacles to the continuity of care, utility, quality improvement, and translational research. Analogous limitations to sharing objective data in other areas of the natural sciences have been successfully overcome by developing and using common ontologies. This White Paper presents the authors' rationale for the use of ontologies with computable semantics for the improvement of clinical data quality and EHR usability formulated for researchers with a stake in clinical and translational science and who are advocates for the use of information technology in medicine but at the same time are concerned by current major shortfalls. This White Paper outlines pitfalls, opportunities, and solutions and recommends increased investment in research and development of ontologies with computable semantics for a new generation of EHRs.

Development of the Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR) tool for clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop a comprehensive instrument for evaluating and ranking clinical practice guidelines, named Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings tool (STAR), and test its reliability, validity, and usability.

METHODS

This study set up a multidisciplinary working group including guideline methodologists, statisticians, journal editors, clinicians, and other experts. Scoping review, Delphi methods, and hierarchical analysis were used to develop the STAR tool. We evaluated the instrument's intrinsic and interrater reliability, content and criterion validity, and usability.

RESULTS

STAR contained 39 items grouped into 11 domains. The mean intrinsic reliability of the domains, indicated by Cronbach's α coefficient, was 0.588 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.414, 0.762). Interrater reliability as assessed with Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.774 (95% CI: 0.740, 0.807) for methodological evaluators and 0.618 (95% CI: 0.587, 0.648) for clinical evaluators. The overall content validity index was 0.905. Pearson's r correlation for criterion validity was 0.885 (95% CI: 0.804, 0.932). The mean usability score of the items was 4.6 and the median time spent to evaluate each guideline was 20 min.

CONCLUSION

The instrument performed well in terms of reliability, validity, and efficiency, and can be used for comprehensively evaluating and ranking guidelines.

Who should see the patient? on deviations from preferred patient-provider assignments in hospitals

In various organizations including hospitals, individuals are not forced to follow specific assignments, and thus, deviations from preferred task assignments are common. This is due to the conventional wisdom that professionals should be given the flexibility to deviate from preferred assignments as needed. It is unclear, however, whether and when this conventional wisdom is true. We use evidence on the assignments of generalist and specialists to patients in our partner hospital (a children's hospital), and generate insights into whether and when hospital administrators should disallow such flexibility. We do so by identifying 73 top medical diagnoses and using detailed patient-level electronic medical record (EMR) data of more than 4,700 hospitalizations. In parallel, we conduct a survey of medical experts and utilized it to identify the preferred provider type that should have been assigned to each patient. Using these two sources of data, we examine the consequence of deviations from preferred provider assignments on three sets of performance measures: operational efficiency (measured by length of stay), quality of care (measured by 30-day readmissions and adverse events), and cost (measured by total charges). We find that deviating from preferred assignments is beneficial for task types (patients' diagnosis in our setting) that are either (a) well-defined (improving operational efficiency and costs), or (b) require high contact (improving costs and adverse events, though at the expense of lower operational efficiency). For other task types (e.g., highly complex or resource-intensive tasks), we observe that deviations are either detrimental or yield no tangible benefits, and thus, hospitals should try to eliminate them (e.g., by developing and enforcing assignment guidelines). To understand the causal mechanism behind our results, we make use of mediation analysis and find that utilizing advanced imaging (e.g., MRIs, CT scans, or nuclear radiology) plays an important role in how deviations impact performance outcomes. Our findings also provide evidence for a "no free lunch" theorem: while for some task types, deviations are beneficial for certain performance outcomes, they can simultaneously degrade performance in terms of other dimensions. To provide clear recommendations for hospital administrators, we also consider counterfactual scenarios corresponding to imposing the preferred assignments fully or partially, and perform cost-effectiveness analyses. Our results indicate that enforcing the preferred assignments either for all tasks or only for resource-intensive tasks is cost-effective, with the latter being the superior policy. Finally, by comparing deviations during weekdays and weekends, early shifts and late shifts, and high congestion and low congestion periods, our results shed light on some environmental conditions under which deviations occur more in practice.

The World Trade Center Health Program: an introduction to best practices

More than 20 years have elapsed since the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), Pentagon and at Shanksville, PA. Many persons continue to suffer a variety of physical and mental health conditions following their exposures to a mixture of incompletely characterized toxicants and psychological stressors at the terrorist attack sites. Primary care and specialized clinicians should ask patients who may have been present at any of the 9/11 sites about their 9/11 exposures, especially patients with cancer, respiratory symptoms, chronic rhinosinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, psychiatric symptoms, and substance use disorders. Clinicians, especially those in the NY metropolitan area, should know how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat patients with conditions that could be associated with exposure to the 9/11 attacks and its aftermath. As such, this issue of Archives contains a series of updates to clinical best practices relevant to medical conditions whose treatment is covered by the WTC Health Program. This first paper in the 14-part series describes the purpose of this series, defines the WTC Health Program and its beneficiaries, and explains how relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines were identified. This paper also reminds readers that because physical and mental health conditions are often intertwined, a coordinated approach to care usually works best and referral to health centers affiliated with the WTC Health Program may be necessary, since all such Centers offer multidisciplinary care.

A Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Vertigo Practice Guidelines Using the AGREE II Tool: A EuroAIM Initiative

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the methodological quality of guidelines for the management of vertigo and dizziness and to compare their recommendations, with specific focus on neuroimaging.

DATABASES REVIEWED

MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence database.

METHODS

In March 2022, a systematic search was performed to find practice guidelines of management of vertigo and dizziness. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool. We excluded from the results those guidelines that were not primarily focused on vertigo and dizziness, such as national/international guidelines in which vertigo and dizziness were only briefly mentioned.

RESULTS

Our strategy of literature search identified 161 studies, and 18 guidelines were selected for the appraisal. Only five guidelines reached the acceptance level in the overall result (at least 60%), with three of them reaching the highest scores (at least 80%). The highest scores were found in Domain 6 "Editorial Independence," Domain 1 "Scope and purpose," and Domain 4 "Clarity of presentation" (median value = 66%, 62%, and 61%, respectively). The remaining domains showed a low level of quality: Domain 2 "Stakeholder Involvement," Domain 3 "Rigor of development," and Domain 5 "Applicability" had median values of 27%, 27%, and 22%, respectively. The quality of these guidelines was very low, because of low involvement of multidisciplinary teams in writing guidelines recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Considering all guidelines, only three had a "high" overall score, whereas 13 of 18 (72%) of them were rated as of "low" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.

Inflammatory bowel disease and risk of dementia: An updated meta-analysis

Background

Growing evidence suggests that inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and dementia share pathological mechanisms and pathogenic risk factors. However, the previously diagnosed IBD and the subsequent risk of developing dementia are largely unknown.

Aim

The purpose of this review is to assess the association between IBD and subsequent dementia diagnosis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library from database inception to February 1, 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias. Observational study that reported the possibility of dementia in IBD and non-IBD populations were included. Eligible studies were pooled effect estimates for relative risk (RR) through fixed-or random-effects models as appropriate.

Results

More than 3,181,549 participants from nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Previous IBD diagnosis did not increased the risk of subsequent all-cause dementia (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.98–1.77) and AD-dementia (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.96–2.76). Subgroup analyses based on study design indicated that cohort studies (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09–1.55) reported an increased risk of all-cause dementia, but were not applicable to AD-dementia (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.94–1.72). Positive associations between IBD patients and all-cause dementia did not differ by age and gender in cohort studies. Both ulcerative colitis (UC) (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00–1.94) and Crohn’s disease (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08–1.98) are associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia.

Conclusion

Evidence regarding dementia risk assessment in IBD patients is conflicting, which may be influenced by study design. More prospective cohort studies are needed to determine their relationship.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.prosper-isd.net], identifier [CRD42021284116].

Consensus Guidelines on Interventional Therapies for Knee Pain (STEP Guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from – unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are “better” and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.

Enhancing the Trustworthiness of the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guidelines

In an effort to enhance the trustworthiness of its clinical practice guidelines, the Endocrine Society has recently adopted new policies and more rigorous methodologies for its guideline program. In this Clinical Practice Guideline Communication, we describe these recent enhancements-many of which reflect greater adherence to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to guideline development-in addition to the rationale for such changes. Improvements to the Society's guideline development practices include, but are not limited to, enhanced inclusion of nonendocrinologist experts, including patient representatives, on guideline development panels; implementation of a more rigorous conflict/duality of interest policy; a requirement that all formal recommendations must be demonstrably underpinned by systematic evidence review; the explicit use of GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks; greater use and explanation of standardized guideline language; and a more intentional approach to guideline updating. Lastly, we describe some of the experiential differences our guideline readers are most likely to notice.

The International Guideline Evaluation Screening Tool (IGEST): development and validation

Background

Guideline adaptation provides an important alternative to de novo guideline development by making the process more efficient and reducing unnecessary duplication. The quality evaluation of international guidelines is an essential part of the adaptation process.

The study aims at describing the development and validation of a new tool to screen trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for their adoption/adaption: the International Guideline Evaluation Screening Tool (IGEST).

Methods

The process of developing the IGEST involved two main phases: 1) tool development and 2) content validation. The tool development phase comprised three stages, where the scope of the IGEST was defined and the item pool was generated and refined. The content validation was performed through the computation of a content validity index (CVI) based on the opinions of an expert panel.

Results

All the items obtained a CVI >0.78, which resulted in the validation of the instrument. The final instrument comprised four preliminary conditions and 12 criteria organised into three dimensions: (i) the management of conflict of interest; (ii) the quality of evidence and the coherence between evidence and recommendations; and (iii) the panel composition.

Conclusion

The IGEST showed good content validity for assessing the quality of international guidelines. Using the new tool to select trustworthy guidelines might increase the likelihood that international clinical practice guidelines will be adopted/adapted to the local context by allowing a quick screening of existing guidelines trustworthiness and providing an acceptability threshold that supports the decision-making process.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01618-5.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review and meta-analysis of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19

Background

Chemosensory disorders associated with COVID-19 have been widely discussed during the pandemic. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk factors for olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for studies published between December 1, 2019, and August 31, 2021. We selected random-effects model or fixed-effects model to pool data based on heterogeneity. The results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was reported as I².

Results

Twenty-six studies with a total of 13,813 patients were included. The pooled data indicated that sex (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.93–2.31), age (SMD −5.80; 95% CI −13.35 to 1.75), smoking (OR 2.04; 95% CI 0.72–5.79), and comorbidity (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.58–2.53) of patients with COVID-19 had no effect on gustatory dysfunction. Olfactory dysfunction was more likely to occur in older patients with COVID-19 (SMD, −5.22; 95% CI, −8.28 to −2.16). Patients with COVID-19 with nasal congestion (OR 3.41; 95% CI 2.30–5.06) and rhinorrhea (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.60–3.45) were more prone to olfactory dysfunction.

Conclusion

These findings emphasize that older patients with COVID-19 are more likely to experience olfactory dysfunction. Symptoms of nasal congestion and rhinorrhea may affect the recognition of olfactory dysfunction.

Adherence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pharmacologic Treatments of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 to Trustworthy Standards: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid and urgent guidance for clinicians to manage COVID-19 among patients and prevent transmission.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 14, 2020, and a search of related articles to February 28, 2021, that included CPGs developed by societies or by government or nongovernment organizations that reported pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed CPG quality using the 15-item National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument.

FINDINGS

Thirty-two CPGs were included in the review. Of these, 25 (78.1%) were developed by professional societies and emanated from a single World Health Organization (WHO) region. Overall, the CPGs were of low quality. Only 7 CPGs (21.9%) reported funding sources, and 12 (37.5%) reported conflicts of interest. Only 5 CPGs (15.6%) included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized the evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 of 32 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 of 32 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of the recommendations (5 of 32 [15.6%]). External review, patient or public perspectives, or a process for updating were rare. High-quality CPGs included a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborations involving investigators from 2 or more WHO regions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this review, few COVID-19 CPGs met NAM standards for trustworthy guidelines. Approaches that prioritize engagement of a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborators from at least 2 WHO regions may lead to the production of fewer, high-quality CPGs that are poised for updates as new evidence emerges.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021245239.

A Review of Implementation Concepts and Strategies Surrounding Traumatic Brain Injury Clinical Care Guidelines

Despite considerable efforts to advance the science surrounding traumatic brain injury (TBI), formal efforts supporting the current and future implementation of scientific findings within clinical practice and healthcare policy are limited. While many and varied guidelines inform the clinical management of TBI across the spectrum, clinicians and healthcare systems are not broadly adopting, implementing, and/or adhering to them. As part of the Brain Trauma Blueprint TBI State of the Science, an expert workgroup was assembled to guide this review article, which describes: (1) possible etiologies of inadequate adoption and implementation; (2) enablers to successful implementation strategies; and (3) strategies to mitigate the barriers to adoption and implementation of future research.

Adherence to guideline creation recommendations for suicide prevention in the emergency department: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Suicide rates in the United States rose 35.2% from 1999-2018. As emergency department (ED) providers often have limited training in management of suicidal patients and minimal access to mental health experts, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may improve care for these patients. However, clinical practice guidelines that do not adhere to quality standards for development may be harmful both to patients, if they promote practices based on flawed evidence, and to ED providers, if used in malpractice claims. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine created standards to determine the trustworthiness of CPGs. This review assessed the adherence of suicide prevention CPGs, intended for the ED, to these standards. Secondary objectives were to assess the association of adherence both with first author/organization specialty (ED vs non-ED) and with inclusion of recommendations on substance use, a potent risk factor for suicide.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of available suicide-prevention CPGs for the ED in both peer-reviewed and gray literature. This review followed the PRISMA standards for reporting systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of 22 included CPGs, the 7 ED-sponsored CPGs had higher adherence to quality standards (3.1 vs 2.4) and included the highest-rated CPG (ICAR²E) identified by this review. Regardless of specialty, nearly all CPGs included some mention of identifying or managing substance use.

CONCLUSIONS

Most suicide prevention CPGs intended for the ED are written by non-ED first authors or organizations and have low adherence to quality standards. Future CPGs should be developed with more scientific rigor, include a multidisciplinary writing group, and be created by authors working in the practice environment to which the CPG applies.

Values and Preferences Related to Cancer Risk among Red and Processed Meat Eaters: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study with Semi-Structured Interviews

Introduction: Over the last decade, the possible impact of meat intake on overall cancer incidence and mortality has received considerable attention, and authorities have recommended decreasing consumption; however, the benefits of reducing meat consumption are small and uncertain. As such, individual decisions to reduce consumption are value- and preference-sensitive. Consequently, we undertook a pilot cross-sectional study to explore people’s values and preferences towards meat consumption in the face of cancer risk. Methods and analysis: The mixed-method pilot study included a quantitative questionnaire followed by qualitative evaluation to explore the dietary habits of 32 meat eaters, their reasons for eating meat, and willingness to change their meat consumption when faced with a potential risk reduction of cancer over a lifetime based on a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. We recruited a convenience sample of participants from two Canadian provinces: Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This project was approved by the Research Ethics Board for Health Sciences research at Dalhousie University, Canada. Results: The average weekly consumption of red meat was 3.4 servings and the average weekly consumption of processed meat was 3 servings. The determinants that influenced meat intake were similar for both red and processed meat. Taste, cost, and family preferences were the three most commonly cited factors impacting red meat intake. Taste, cost, and (lack of) cooking time were the three most commonly cited factors impacting processed meat intake. None of the participants were willing to eliminate red or processed meat from their diet. About half of participants were willing to potentially reduce their meat consumption, with one third definitely willing to reduce their consumption. Strengths and limitations: This study is the first that we are aware of to share data with participants on the association of red meat and processed meat consumption and the risk of cancer mortality and cancer incidence, including the certainty of evidence for the risk reduction. The limitations of this study include its small sample size and its limited geographic sampling. Conclusions: When presented explicit information about the small uncertain cancer risk associated with red and processed meat consumption, study participants were unwilling to eliminate meat, while about one-third were willing to reduce their meat intake.

Guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department (GRACE): Recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the emergency department

This first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low-risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non-obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.

Meta-synthesis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Treatment Options: Developing Consolidated Clinical Treatment Recommendations to Improve Practice

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) treatment contains ambiguities across and within disciplines. This meta-synthesis of professional guidelines consolidates clinical treatment recommendations for CTS treatment and classifies them by strength of evidence. We conducted a search of Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed for published clinical treatment recommendations for CTS. A systematic hand search was completed to identify additional professional organizations with published recommendations. We extracted any mentioned treatment from all sources but developed our final consolidated clinical treatment recommendations only from select rigorous guidelines based on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria for trustworthy guidelines. We translated rating systems of the primary guidelines into a universal rating system to classify recommendations for consolidated clinical treatment recommendations. Our search yielded 30 sources that mentioned a total of 55 CTS treatments. Six of the sources met the IOM inclusion criteria. These primary guidelines provided recommendations for 46 of the 55 treatments, which were consolidated into 12 broad treatment categories. Surgery, positioning, and steroids were strongly supported. Conservative treatments provided by rehabilitation professionals were conditionally supported. Pharmaceuticals, supplements, and alternative treatments were not generally supported. CTS is a complex condition with a wide variety of treatments provided by a multitude of disciplines. Our consolidated clinical treatment recommendations offer a comprehensive outline of available treatments for CTS and contributes to the process of developing best practices for its treatment.

The Development of Cancer Screening Guidelines

Clinicians and the public have always depended on expert advice to guide clinical practice. However, since the 1970s, a growing emphasis on evidence-based medicine has led to clinical practice guidelines being less expert based and increasingly evidence based and judgments about the balance between the two. Because the existence of standards for guidelines development is no guarantee that a guideline will be trustworthy, tools and instruments have been developed to measure the degree to which a guideline has been developed with rigorous adherence to methodology, and has not been influenced by conflicts of interest.

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

IMPORTANCE

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users.

EXPOSURES

Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters.

RESULTS

A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α = 0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r = 0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.