Dataset Information

Impact and use of reviews and 'overviews of reviews' to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and 'overviews of systematic reviews' (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:CPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017-2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference.

SUBMITTER: Lunny C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7044835 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact and use of reviews and 'overviews of reviews' to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study.

Lunny Carole C Ramasubbu Cynthia C Gerrish Savannah S Liu Tracy T Salzwedel Douglas M DM Puil Lorri L Mintzes Barbara B Wright James Jim JJ

BMJ open 20200120 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and 'overviews of systematic reviews' (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We a ...[more]

PMID: 31964662

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAssessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations.MethodsGuidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder.ResultsOf the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines.ConclusionsHigh quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence suggests the presence of deficiencies in the quality of care provided to up to half of all paediatric trauma patients in Canada, the USA and Australia. Lack of adherence to evidence-based recommendations may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aim to systematically review CPG recommendations for paediatric injury care and appraise their quality.Methods and analysisWe will identify CPG recommendations through a comprehensive search strategy including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and websites of organisations publishing recommendations on paediatric injury care. We will consider CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting paediatric injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention from the acute phase of care with any comparator developed in high-income countries in the last 15 years (January 2007 to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text of eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the quality of CPGs and their recommendations using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE Recommendations Excellence instruments, respectively. We will synthesise evidence on recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework and present results within a recommendations matrix.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not a requirement as this study is based on available published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international scientific meetings and distributed to healthcare providers.Prospero registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226934).

Project description:Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.

Project description:PurposeTo inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by systematically reviewing evidence of (a) effectiveness; (b) test accuracy; (c) individuals' values and preferences; and (d) strategies aimed at improving screening rates.MethodsDe novo reviews will be conducted to evaluate effectiveness and to assess values and preferences. For test accuracy and strategies to improve screening rates, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews with search updates to the present. Two Cochrane reviews will provide evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes from the conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (except for individuals' values and preferences, where Medline, Scopus, and EconLit will be searched) via peer-reviewed search strategies and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. We will search ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Two reviewers will screen potentially eligible studies and agree on those to include. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another. Two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias and reach consensus. Where possible and suitable, we will pool studies via meta-analysis. We will compare accuracy data per outcome and per comparison using the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model and report relative sensitivities and specificities. Findings on values and preferences will be synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach and thematic analysis, depending on study designs. Two reviewers will appraise the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and come to consensus.DiscussionThe publication of guidance on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by the Task Force in 2013 focused on cytology. Since 2013, new studies using human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening have been published that will improve our understanding of screening in primary care settings. This review will inform updated recommendations based on currently available studies and address key evidence gaps noted in our previous review.

Project description:IntroductionMental disorders are common in adult patients with traumatic injuries. To limit the burden of poor psychological well-being in this population, recognised authorities have issued recommendations through clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, the uptake of evidence-based recommendations to improve the mental health of trauma patients has been low until recently. This may be explained by the complexity of optimising mental health practices and interpretating CGPs scope and quality. Our aim is to systematically review CPG mental health recommendations in the context of trauma care and appraise their quality.Methods and analysisWe will identify CPG through a search strategy applied to Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases, as well as guidelines repositories and websites of trauma associations. We will target CPGs on adult and acute trauma populations including at least one recommendation on any prevention, screening, assessment, intervention, patient and family engagement, referral or follow-up procedure related to mental health endorsed by recognised organisations in high-income countries. No language limitations will be applied, and we will limit the search to the last 15 years. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, full texts, and carry out data extraction and quality assessment of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We will synthesise the evidence on recommendations for CPGs rated as moderate or high quality using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, health and social determinants and whether recommendations were made using a population-based approach.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required, as we will conduct secondary analysis of published data. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at international and national scientific meetings. Accessible summary will be distributed to interested parties through professional, healthcare quality and persons with lived experience associations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: (ID454728).

Dataset Information

Impact and use of reviews and 'overviews of reviews' to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study.

Publications

Impact and use of reviews and 'overviews of reviews' to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets