The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Clinical guidelines should be updated to maintain their validity. Our aim was to estimate the length of time before recommendations become outdated.Methods
We used a retrospective cohort design and included recommendations from clinical guidelines developed in the Spanish National Health System clinical guideline program since 2008. We performed a descriptive analysis of references, recommendations and resources used, and a survival analysis of recommendations using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results
We included 113 recommendations from 4 clinical guidelines with a median of 4 years since the most recent search (range 3.9-4.4 yr). We retrieved 39 136 references (range 3343-14 787) using an exhaustive literature search, 668 of which were related to the recommendations in our sample. We identified 69 (10.3%) key references, corresponding to 25 (22.1%) recommendations that required updating. Ninety-two percent (95% confidence interval 86.9-97.0) of the recommendations were valid 1 year after their development. This probability decreased at 2 (85.7%), 3 (81.3%) and 4 years (77.8%).Interpretation
Recommendations quickly become outdated, with 1 out of 5 recommendations being out of date after 3 years. Waiting more than 3 years to review a guideline is potentially too long.
SUBMITTER: Martinez Garcia L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4216254 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis.
Martínez García Laura L Sanabria Andrea Juliana AJ García Alvarez Elvira E Trujillo-Martín Maria Mar MM Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta Itziar I Kotzeva Anna A Rigau David D Louro-González Arturo A Barajas-Nava Leticia L Díaz Del Campo Petra P Estrada Maria-Dolors MD Solà Ivan I Gracia Javier J Salcedo-Fernandez Flavia F Lawson Jennifer J Haynes R Brian RB Alonso-Coello Pablo P
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20140908 16
<h4>Background</h4>Clinical guidelines should be updated to maintain their validity. Our aim was to estimate the length of time before recommendations become outdated.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a retrospective cohort design and included recommendations from clinical guidelines developed in the Spanish National Health System clinical guideline program since 2008. We performed a descriptive analysis of references, recommendations and resources used, and a survival analysis of recommendations using th ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundUpdating is important to ensure clinical guideline (CG) recommendations remain valid. However, little research has been undertaken in this field. We assessed CGs produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to identify and describe updated recommendations and to investigate potential factors associated with updating. Also, we evaluated the reporting and presentation of recommendation changes.MethodsWe performed a descriptive analysis of original and updated CGs and recommendations, and an assessment of presentation formats and methods for recording information. We conducted a case-control study, defining cases as original recommendations that were updated ('new-replaced' recommendations), and controls as original recommendations that were considered to remain valid ('not changed' recommendations). We performed a comparison of main characteristics between cases and controls, and we planned a multiple regression analysis to identify potential predictive factors for updating.ResultsWe included nine updated CGs (1,306 recommendations) and their corresponding original versions (1,106 recommendations). Updated CGs included 812 (62%) recommendations 'not reviewed', 368 (28.1%) 'new' recommendations, 104 (7.9%) 'amended' recommendations, and 25 (1.9%) recommendations reviewed but unchanged. The presentation formats used to indicate the changes in recommendations varied widely across CGs. Changes in 'amended', 'deleted', and 'new-replaced' recommendations (n = 296) were reported infrequently, mostly in appendices. These changes were recorded in 167 (56.4%) recommendations; and were explained in 81 (27.4%) recommendations. We retrieved a total of 7.1% (n = 78) case recommendations ('new-replaced') and 2.4% (n = 27) control recommendations ('not changed') in original CGs. The updates were mainly from 'Fertility CG', about 'gynaecology, pregnancy and birth' topic, and 'treatment' or 'prevention' purposes. We did not perform the multiple regression analysis as originally planned due to the small sample of recommendations retrieved.ConclusionOur study is the first to describe and assess updated CGs and recommendations from a national guideline program. Our results highlight the pressing need to standardise the reporting and presentation of updated recommendations and the research gap about the optimal way to present updates to guideline users. Furthermore, there is a need to investigate updating predictive factors.
| S-EPMC4067507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the current Chinese and English guidelines of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children and provide a summary of the recommendations of the guidelines.MethodsAn electronic search was conducted on databases, including Pubmed, SinoMed, Wangfang Data, CHKD,VIP, NICE, WHO, GIN and Medliveto retrieve data of the clinical practice guidelines on UTI from the establishment of the database to June 2020. Four assessors assessed the quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) and evaluated the specific recommendations in guidelines.Results(1) Nine guidelines including two from the USA (AAP and A guideline for the inpatient care of children with pyelonephritis) and the remaining from EAU/ESPU, SINEPE, KHA-CARI, CPS, ISPN, NICE and CMA-CSP were explored. (2) The AGREE II evaluation demonstrated higher scores of UTI guidelines in terms of 'scope and purpose' (72.99%±11.19%) and 'clarity of presentation' (75.62%±7.75%), whereas the average scores were lower in the aspect of 'stakeholder involvement' (35.49%±14.41%), 'rigour of development' (37.05%±10.05%), 'applicability' (37.75%±11.98%) and 'editorial independence' (43.06%±48.14%). The average scores of the guidelines were as follows: SINePe (72.57%), CMA-CSP (62.96%), EAU/ESPU (59.61%), AAP (56.86%), NICE (47.54%), CPS (40.93%), KHA-CARI (38.86%), ISPN (38.63%) and A guideline for the inpatient care of children with pyelonephritis (34.72%). (3) All the selected guidelines basically reached a consensus on urine sample retention methods in older children, the antibiotic treatment course and renal and bladder ultrasonography application but lacked a conclusion on the determination of urine culture results, the choice of voiding cystourethrography and Tc-99mdimercaptosuccinicacid, and antibiotic prophylaxis.ConclusionThere remains a need to improve the quality of guidelinesfor UTI in clinical practice. Existing controversies on the current guidelines of UTI in some recommendations warrant further exploration to provide more evidence on formulating more unified and practical guidelines in the future.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this research, as it did not include patients or patient data.
| S-EPMC9047976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePrimary care clinicians, who are increasingly responsible for caring for the growing population of cancer survivors, may be unfamiliar with appropriate cancer surveillance strategies. Clinical practice guidelines can inform cancer follow-up care and surveillance testing. Vague recommendations and inconsistencies among guidelines can lead to overuse and underuse of health care resources and have a negative impact on cost and quality of survivorship care.ObjectiveTo examine the specificity and consistency of recommendations for surveillance after active treatment across cancer guidelines.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of national cancer guidelines from North America and Europe published since 2010 addressing posttreatment care for survivors of the 9 most common cancers. We categorized surveillance modalities into history and physical examinations, tumor markers, diagnostic procedures (eg, colonoscopy), and imaging. Within each guideline, we classified individual recommendations into 5 categories: (1) risk-based recommendation, (2) recommendation for surveillance, (3) addressed but no clear recommendation, (4) recommendation against surveillance, or (5) cases in which surveillance was not addressed. We reviewed each surveillance recommendation for frequency and a stop date, evaluated consistency among guidelines, and analyzed associations between the organizations proposing the guidelines and recommendation characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresDescription of guideline recommendations for cancer surveillance.ResultsWe identified 41 guidelines published between January 1, 2010, and March 1, 2016. Eighty-five percent of guidelines (35) were from professional organizations. Ambiguous recommendations (ie, modality not discussed or discussed without a clear recommendation) were present in 83% of guidelines (34), and 44% (18) recommended against at least 1 test. European guidelines were more likely than North American guidelines to contain ambiguous recommendations (100% vs 68%; P < .01). Recommendations commonly specified testing frequency (from 88% [14 of 16] for tumor markers to 92% [24 of 26] for procedures and/or imaging) but infrequently provided a definitive stop time. Cross-sectional imaging recommendations varied among guidelines for each cancer. For example, among breast cancer guidelines, surveillance computed tomographic scans were recommended against in 2, discussed without a clear recommendation in 1, and not addressed in 3 guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceGuidelines addressing the care of cancer survivors have low specificity and consistency. As guidelines continue to be revised, developers should clarify recommendations with simple, nonambiguous, definitive language for or against the use of specific tests to optimize care quality and resource utilization.
| S-EPMC5590752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Excess dietary sodium intake and insufficient dietary potassium intake are both well-established risk factors for hypertension. Despite some successful initiatives, efforts to control hypertension by improving dietary intake have largely failed because the changes required are mostly too hard to implement. Consistent recent data from randomized controlled trials show that potassium-enriched, sodium-reduced salt substitutes are an effective option for improving consumption levels and reducing blood pressure and the rates of cardiovascular events and deaths. Yet, salt substitutes are inconsistently recommended and rarely used. We sought to define the extent to which evidence about the likely benefits and harms of potassium-enriched salt substitutes has been incorporated into clinical management by systematically searching guidelines for the management of hypertension or chronic kidney disease. We found incomplete and inconsistent recommendations about the use of potassium-enriched salt substitutes in the 32 hypertension and 14 kidney guidelines that we reviewed. Discussion among the authors identified the possibility of updating clinical guidelines to provide consistent advice about the use of potassium-enriched salt for hypertension control. Draft wording was chosen to commence debate and progress consensus building: strong recommendation for patients with hypertension-potassium-enriched salt with a composition of 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride should be recommended to all patients with hypertension, unless they have advanced kidney disease, are using a potassium supplement, are using a potassium-sparing diuretic, or have another contraindication. We strongly encourage clinical guideline bodies to review their recommendations about the use of potassium-enriched salt substitutes at the earliest opportunity.
| S-EPMC10863666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and summarize clinical practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) for the Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation for the World Health Organization (WHO).Data sourcesAcademic databases, Google Scholar, guideline databases, and professional society websites were searched using the general criteria "ASD/ID" AND "rehabilitation" AND "guideline," restricted to English-only guidelines.Study selectionWork group members independently screened titles and abstracts (1952 ASD; 1027 ID) and excluded articles if not (1) a guideline; (2) about rehabilitation; (3) published since 2008; or (4) about ASD/ID. Full-text screening (29 ASD; 5 ID) involved 3 additional exclusion criteria: (1) contained conflict of interest; (2) lacked information on strength of recommendation; or (3) failed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Six guidelines (4 ASD: 2 on youth, 1 on adults, 1 on all ages; 2 ID: 1 on challenging behaviors, 1 on mental health) resulted.Data extractionWork group members extracted 524 recommendations (386 ASD; 138 ID) from the guidelines including the level of evidence, diagnostic and age group, recommendation type (assessment, intervention, service), target, and valence.Data synthesisOf the 270 intervention recommendations (212 ASD; 58 ID), only 36 for ASD and 47 for ID were empirically based. Most comprised biomedical (23%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychosocial (21%) interventions for ASD and behavioral (14%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychological (14%) interventions for ID. Intervention recommendations primarily targeted coexisting conditions (56% ASD; 93% ID), whereas core symptoms received much less attention (26% ASD).ConclusionsClinical practice guidelines reviewed for ASD and ID primarily contained recommendations based on expert opinion, with the plurality of recommendations relating to pharmacologic treatment. Vital next steps include identifying relevant interventions for inclusion in the WHO Package and continuing to conduct rigorous intervention research, particularly on core symptoms of these conditions, to extend recommendations for high-quality guidelines.
| S-EPMC8463470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UnlabelledThe American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guidelines provide recommendations in diagnosing and managing patients with liver disease from available scientific evidence in combination with expert consensus opinions. The aim was to systematically review the evolution of recommendations from AASLD guidelines and identify gaps limiting the evidence-based foundations of these guidelines. Initial and current AASLD guidelines published from January 1998 to August 2012 were reviewed. The AGREE II instrument was used to evaluate rigor and transparency of guideline development. The number of recommendations, distribution of grades (strength or certainty), classes (benefit versus risk), and types of recommendations were evaluated. Whenever possible, multiple versions were evaluated for evolving scientific evidence. A total of 991 recommendations from 28 guidelines on 17 topics were evaluated. From initial to current guidelines, the total number of recommendations increased by 36% (512 to 699). The largest increases were from chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) (+71), liver transplantation (+53), and autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) (+27). Most current recommendations are grade II (44%) and less than 20% are grade I. The AGREE II evaluation showed global improvement in guideline quality. Both HBV and chronic hepatitis C guidelines had greatest increases in grade I recommendations (+383% and +67%, respectively). The greatest increases in treatment recommendations were from HBV (grade I, +1,150%), liver transplantation (grade II, +112%), and AIH (grade III, +105%).ConclusionDespite significant increases in the numbers of recommendations within AASLD practice guidelines over time, only a minority are supported by grade I evidence, highlighting the need for developing well-designed investigations to provide evidence for areas of uncertainty and improving the quality of future guidelines in hepatobiliary diseases.
| S-EPMC4613804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiple guidelines exist for the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We systematically reviewed current guidelines and recommendations, developed by national or international medical organizations, on management of AS to aid clinical decision-making. Publications in MEDLINE and EMBASE between 1 June 2010 and 15 January 2021 were identified. Additionally, the International Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations were searched. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Two reviewers assessed rigour of guideline development and extracted the recommendations. Of the seven guidelines and recommendations retrieved, five showed considerable rigour of development. Those rigourously developed, agreed on the definition of severe AS and diverse haemodynamic phenotypes, indications and contraindications for intervention in symptomatic severe AS, surveillance intervals in asymptomatic severe AS, and the importance of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and shared decision-making. Discrepancies exist in age and surgical risk cut-offs for recommending surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vs. transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the use of biomarkers and complementary multimodality imaging for decision-making in asymptomatic patients and surveillance intervals for non-severe AS. Contemporary guidelines for AS management agree on the importance of MDT involvement and shared decision-making for individualized treatment and unanimously indicate valve replacement in severe, symptomatic AS. Discrepancies exist in thresholds for age and procedural risk used in choosing between SAVR and TAVI, role of biomarkers and complementary imaging modalities to define AS severity and risk of progression in asymptomatic patients.
| S-EPMC8294692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection and identify gaps that limit their development.Study design and settingCPGs for HP infection were systematically collected from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and six online guideline repositories. Three researchers independently used the AGREE Ⅱ tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the eligible CPGs. In addition, the reporting and recommendation qualities were appraised by using the RIGHT and AGREE-REX tools, respectively. The distribution of the level of evidence and strength of recommendation among evidence-based CPGs was determined.ResultsA total of 7,019 records were identified, and 24 CPGs met the eligibility criteria. Of the eligible CPGs, 19 were evidence-based and 5 were consensus-based. The mean overall rating score of AGREE II was 50.7% (SD = 17.2%). Among six domains, the highest mean score was for scope and purpose (74.4%, SD = 17.7%) and the lowest mean score was for applicability (24.3%, SD = 8.9). Only three of 24 CPGs were high-quality. The mean overall score of recommendation quality was 35.5% (SD = 12.2%), and the mean scores in each domain of AGREE-REX and RIGHT were all ≤ 60%, with values and preferences scoring the lowest (16.6%, SD = 11.9%). A total of 505 recommendations were identified. Strong recommendations accounted for 64.1%, and only 34.3% of strong recommendations were based on high-quality evidence.ConclusionThe overall quality of CPGs for HP infection is poor, and CPG developers tend to neglect some domains, resulting in a wide variability in the quality of the CPGs. Additionally, CPGs for HP infection lack sufficient high-quality evidence, and the grading of recommendation strength should be based on the quality of evidence. The CPGs for HP infection have much room for improvement and further researches are required to minimize the evidence gap.
| S-EPMC11006150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are an important element of evidence-based practice. Considering an often complicated body of evidence can be problematic for guideline developers, who in the past may have resorted to using levels of evidence of individual studies as a quasi-indicator for the strength of a recommendation. This paper reports on the production and trial of a methodology and associated processes to assist Australian guideline developers in considering a body of evidence and grading the resulting guideline recommendations. METHODS: In recognition of the complexities of clinical guidelines and the multiple factors that influence choice in health care, a working group of experienced guideline consultants was formed under the auspices of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to produce and pilot a framework to formulate and grade guideline recommendations. Consultation with national and international experts and extensive piloting informed the process. RESULTS: The FORM framework consists of five components (evidence base, consistency, clinical impact, generalisability and applicability) which are used by guideline developers to structure their decisions on how to convey the strength of a recommendation through wording and grading via a considered judgement form. In parallel (but separate from the grading process) guideline developers are asked to consider implementation implications for each recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The framework has now been widely adopted by Australian guideline developers who find it to be a logical and intuitive way to formulate and grade recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.
| S-EPMC3053308 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Choosing Wisely campaign has spread to many countries. Methods for developing recommendations are inconsistent. We describe our process of developing such recommendations from a comprehensive national set of clinical practice guidelines (Current Care, CC) and the results of a one-year Choosing Wisely Finland project. METHODS:Two of the authors drafted the quality and process criteria for all the Choosing Wisely Finland recommendations. The quality criteria were relevance, feasibility, evidence-based and strength. These were discussed in editors' meetings and subsequently revised. Two different processes for developing recommendations within national clinical practice guidelines were designed and piloted (processes A and B). Process A was based on a published guideline. The recommendations are drafted by an editor and revised and approved by the guideline development group. In process B the development of the recommendations is integrated with guideline production or update. Choosing Wisely recommendations were then drafted for half of the published CC Guidelines. An additional process (process C) was designed for producing independent recommendations outside a guideline. RESULTS:At least one Choosing Wisely recommendation could be identified from 39 out of 52 reviewed guidelines. Of the 106 recommendations drafted, 62 (58%) were accepted for publication. The main reasons for rejection were inability to give a strong recommendation (n?=?18, 41%) and insufficient relevance (n?=?14, 32%). Two thirds (n?=?41, 66%) of the published recommendations were based on high to moderate level of evidence, and 18% (n?=?11) on low or very low level of evidence, whereas for the rest, the quality of evidence was not critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS:Choosing Wisely recommendations can be produced systematically from existing clinical practice guidelines. The rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine ensure high-quality recommendations. We welcome the use of our processes and methods describes in this article by other guideline-producing organizations.
| S-EPMC6729023 | biostudies-literature