Dataset Information

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is no standardised protocol for developing clinically relevant guideline questions. We aimed to create such a protocol and to apply it to developing a new guideline.

Methods

We reviewed international guideline manuals and, through consensus, combined steps for developing clinical questions to produce a best-practice protocol that incorporated qualitative research. The protocol was applied to develop clinical questions for a guideline for general practitioners.

Results

A best-practice protocol incorporating qualitative research was created. Using the protocol, we developed 10 clinical questions that spanned diagnosis, management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Guideline developers can apply this protocol to develop clinically relevant guideline questions.

SUBMITTER: Chakraborty S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7523054 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions.

Chakraborty Samantha S Brijnath Bianca B Dermentzis Jacinta J Mazza Danielle D

Health research policy and systems 20200929 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is no standardised protocol for developing clinically relevant guideline questions. We aimed to create such a protocol and to apply it to developing a new guideline.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed international guideline manuals and, through consensus, combined steps for developing clinical questions to produce a best-practice protocol that incorporated qualitative research. The protocol was applied to develop clinical questions for a guideline for general practitioners.<h4> ...[more]

PMID: 32993665

Similar Datasets

Project description:The prognosis for patients with glioblastoma (GB) remains grim. Concurrent temozolomide (TMZ) radiation-the cornerstone of glioma control-extends the overall median survival of GB patients by only a few months over radiotherapy alone. While these survival gains could be partly attributed to radiosensitization, this benefit is greatly minimized in tumors expressing O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT), which specifically reverses O6-methylguanine lesions. Theoretically, non-O6-methylguanine lesions (i.e., the N-methylpurine adducts), which represent up to 90% of TMZ-generated DNA adducts, could also contribute to radiosensitization. Unfortunately, at concentrations attainable in clinical practice, the alkylation capacity of TMZ cannot overwhelm the repair of N-methylpurine adducts to efficiently exploit these lesions. The current therapeutic application of TMZ therefore faces two main obstacles: (i) the stochastic presence of MGMT and (ii) a blunted radiosensitization potential at physiologic concentrations. To circumvent these limitations, we are developing a novel molecule called NEO212-a derivatization of TMZ generated by coupling TMZ to perillyl alcohol. Based on gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and high-performance liquid chromatography analyses, we determined that NEO212 had greater tumor cell uptake than TMZ. In mouse models, NEO212 was more efficient than TMZ at crossing the blood-brain barrier, preferentially accumulating in tumoral over normal brain tissue. Moreover, in vitro analyses with GB cell lines, including TMZ-resistant isogenic variants, revealed more potent cytotoxic and radiosensitizing activities for NEO212 at physiologic concentrations. Mechanistically, these advantages of NEO212 over TMZ could be attributed to its enhanced tumor uptake presumably leading to more extensive DNA alkylation at equivalent dosages which, ultimately, allows for N-methylpurine lesions to be better exploited for radiosensitization. This effect cannot be achieved with TMZ at clinically relevant concentrations and is independent of MGMT. Our findings establish NEO212 as a superior radiosensitizer and a potentially better alternative to TMZ for newly diagnosed GB patients, irrespective of their MGMT status.

Project description:BackgroundIt is not known whether there are differences in the quality and recommendations between evidence-based (EB) and consensus-based (CB) guidelines. We used breast cancer guidelines as a case study to assess for these differences.MethodsFive different instruments to evaluate the quality of guidelines were identified by a literature search. We also searched MEDLINE and the Internet to locate 8 breast cancer guidelines. These guidelines were classified in three categories: evidence based, consensus based and consensus based with no explicit consideration of evidence (CB-EB). Each guideline was evaluated by three of the authors using each of the instruments. For each guideline we assessed the agreement among 14 decision points which were selected from the NCCN (National Cancer Comprehensive Network) guidelines algorithm. For each decision point we recorded the level of the quality of the information used to support it. A regression analysis was performed to assess if the percentage of high quality evidence used in the guidelines development was related to the overall quality of the guidelines.ResultsThree guidelines were classified as EB, three as CB-EB and two as CB. The EB guidelines scored better than CB, with the CB-EB scoring in the middle among all instruments for guidelines quality assessment. No major disagreement in recommendations was detected among the guidelines regardless of the method used for development, but the EB guidelines had a better agreement with the benchmark guideline for any decision point. When the source of evidence used to support decision were of high quality, we found a higher level of full agreement among the guidelines' recommendations. Up to 94% of variation in the quality score among guidelines could be explained by the quality of evidence used for guidelines development.ConclusionEB guidelines have a better quality than CB guidelines and CB-EB guidelines. Explicit use of high quality evidence can lead to a better agreement among recommendations. However, no major disagreement among guidelines was noted regardless of the method for their development.

Project description:Bayesian analysis is firmly grounded in the science of probability and has been increasingly supplementing or replacing traditional approaches based on P values. In this review, we present gradually more complex examples, along with programming code and data sets, to show how Bayesian analysis takes evidence from randomized clinical trials to update what is already known about specific treatments in cardiovascular medicine. In the example of revascularization choices for diabetic patients who have multivessel coronary artery disease, we combine the results of the FREEDOM trial (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) with prior probability distributions to show how strongly we should believe in the new Class I recommendation ("should be done") for a preference of bypass surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention. In the debate about the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation, we avoid a common pitfall in traditional meta-analysis and create a network of randomized clinical trials to compare outcomes after specific treatment durations. Although we find no credible increase in mortality, we affirm the tradeoff between increased bleeding and reduced myocardial infarctions with prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, findings that support the new Class IIb recommendation ("may be considered") to extend dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation. In the decision between culprit artery-only and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, we use hierarchical meta-analysis to analyze evidence from observational studies and randomized clinical trials and find that the probability of all-cause mortality at longest follow-up is similar after both strategies, a finding that challenges the older ban against noninfarct-artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. These examples illustrate how Bayesian analysis integrates new trial information with existing knowledge to reduce uncertainty and change attitudes about treatments in cardiovascular medicine.

Dataset Information

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets