Dataset Information

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a crucial process for maintaining the validity of recommendations. Methodological handbooks should provide guidance on both developing and updating CPGs. However, little is known about the updating guidance provided by these handbooks. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe the updating guidance provided by CPG methodological handbooks and included handbooks that provide updating guidance for CPGs. We searched in the Guidelines International Network library, US National Guidelines Clearinghouse and MEDLINE (PubMed) from 1966 to September 2013. Two authors independently selected the handbooks and extracted the data. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the extracted data and conducted a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We included 35 handbooks. Most handbooks (97.1%) focus mainly on developing CPGs, including variable degrees of information about updating. Guidance on identifying new evidence and the methodology of assessing the need for an update is described in 11 (31.4%) and eight handbooks (22.8%), respectively. The period of time between two updates is described in 25 handbooks (71.4%), two to three years being the most frequent (40.0%). The majority of handbooks do not provide guidance for the literature search, evidence selection, assessment, synthesis, and external review of the updating process. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for updating CPGs is poorly described in methodological handbooks. This guidance should be more rigorous and explicit. This could lead to a more optimal updating process, and, ultimately to valid trustworthy guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Vernooij RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3904688 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks.

Vernooij Robin W M RW Sanabria Andrea Juliana AJ Solà Ivan I Alonso-Coello Pablo P Martínez García Laura L

Implementation science : IS 20140102

<h4>Background</h4>Updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a crucial process for maintaining the validity of recommendations. Methodological handbooks should provide guidance on both developing and updating CPGs. However, little is known about the updating guidance provided by these handbooks.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe the updating guidance provided by CPG methodological handbooks and included handbooks that provide updating guidance for CPG ...[more]

PMID: 24383701

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs.Study design and settingWe conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information.ResultsWe included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations' Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPG) are statements that provide recommendations regarding the approach to different diseases and aim to increase quality while decreasing the risk of complications in health care. Numerous guidelines in the field of perioperative care have been published in the previous decade but their methodological quality and transparency are relatively unknown.ObjectiveTo critically evaluate the transparency and methodological quality of published CPG in the preoperative assessment and management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery.DesignSystematic review and methodological appraisal study.Data sourcesWe searched for eligible CPG published in English or Spanish between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022, in Pubmed MEDLINE, TRIP Database, Embase, the Cochrane Library, as well as in representatives' medical societies of Anaesthesiology and developers of CPG.Eligibility criteriaCPG dedicated on preoperative fasting, cardiac assessment for non-cardiac surgery, and the use of routine preoperative tests were included. Methodological quality and transparency of CPG were assessed by 3 evaluators using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II tool.ResultsWe included 20 CPG of which 14 were classified as recommended guidelines. The domain of "applicability" scored the lowest (44%), while the domains "scope and objective" and "editorial interdependence" received the highest median scores of 93% and 97% respectively. The remaining domains received scores ranging from 44% to 84%. The top mean scored CPG in preoperative fasting was ASA 2017 (93%); among cardiac evaluation, CPG for non-cardiac surgery were CCS 2017 (91%), ESC-ESA 2014 (90%), and AHA-ACC 2014 (89%); in preoperative testing ICSI 2020 (97%).ConclusionsIn the last ten years, most published CPG in the preoperative assessment or management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery focused on preoperative fasting, cardiac assessment for non-cardiac surgery, and use of routine preoperative tests, present moderate to high methodological quality and can be recommended for their use or adaptation. Applicability and stakeholder involvement domains must be improved in the development of future guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become increasingly popular, and the methodology to develop guidelines has evolved enormously. However, little attention has been given to the updating process, in contrast to the appraisal of the available literature. We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods.MethodsWe developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing literature about guideline updating and expert comments. We carried out the survey between March and July 2009, and it was sent by email to 106 institutions: 69 members of the Guidelines International Network who declared that they developed CPGs; 30 institutions included in the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse database that published more than 20 CPGs; and 7 institutions selected by an expert committee.ResultsForty-four institutions answered the questionnaire (42% response rate). In the final analysis, 39 completed questionnaires were included. Thirty-six institutions (92%) reported that they update their guidelines. Thirty-one institutions (86%) have a formal procedure for updating their guidelines, and 19 (53%) have a formal procedure for deciding when a guideline becomes out of date. Institutions describe the process as moderately rigorous (36%) or acknowledge that it could certainly be more rigorous (36%). Twenty-two institutions (61%) alert guideline users on their website when a guideline is older than three to five years or when there is a risk of being outdated. Twenty-five institutions (64%) support the concept of "living guidelines," which are continuously monitored and updated. Eighteen institutions (46%) have plans to design a protocol to improve their guideline-updating process, and 21 (54%) are willing to share resources with other organizations.ConclusionsOur study is the first to describe the process of updating CPGs among prominent guideline institutions across the world, providing a comprehensive picture of guideline updating. There is an urgent need to develop rigorous international standards for this process and to minimize duplication of effort internationally.

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.MethodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.ResultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively.ConclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

Project description:BackgroundAnnually, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) kill 38 million people worldwide, with low and middle-income countries accounting for three-quarters of these deaths. High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are fundamental to improving NCD management. The present study evaluated the methodological rigor and transparency of Brazilian CPGs that recommend pharmacological treatment for the most prevalent NCDs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for CPGs of the following NCDs: asthma, atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease and/or stable angina, dementia, depression, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. CPGs comprising pharmacological treatment recommendations were included. No language or year restrictions were applied. CPGs were excluded if they were merely for local use and referred to NCDs not listed above. CPG quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument, version II (AGREE II).Main findings"Scope and purpose" and "clarity and presentation" domains received the highest scores. Sixteen of 26 CPGs were classified as low quality, and none were classified as high overall quality. No CPG was recommended without modification (77% were not recommended at all). After 2009, 2 domain scores ("rigor of development" and "clarity and presentation") increased (61% and 73%, respectively). However, "rigor of development" was still rated < 30%.ConclusionBrazilian healthcare professionals should be concerned with CPG quality for the treatment of selected NCDs. Features that undermined AGREE II scores included the lack of a multidisciplinary team for the development group, no consideration of patients' preferences, insufficient information regarding literature searches, lack of selection criteria, formulating recommendations, authors' conflict of interest disclosures, and funding body influence.

Dataset Information

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks.

Publications

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets