Modernizing clinical practice guidelines for the American Academy of Dermatology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Freeman EE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8815007 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Modernizing clinical practice guidelines for the American Academy of Dermatology.
Freeman Esther E EE McMahon Devon E DE Fitzgerald Matthew M Robinson Sandy S Frazer-Green Lindsy L Hariharan Vidhya V McMillen Allen A Malik Sameer S Cornelius Lynn L Pak Hon S HS Cronin Terrence A TA Bordeaux Jeremey S JS Cooper Kevin D KD
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 20200121 6
The American Academy of Dermatology is modernizing its clinical practice guidelines to be more timely and easily interpretable, while decreasing the influence of conflicts of interest in guideline generation. The main changes include the transition from SORT to GRADE methodology and the requirement that nonconflicted members of the guideline work groups remain nonconflicted throughout the entire guidelines process. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceRecommendations of clinical guidelines affect physicians' care delivery. Potential bias and undeclared conflicts of interests (COIs) among guideline authors can impact clinical practice decisions.ObjectiveTo assess financial disclosures reported by physician authors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Practice Pattern Guidelines compared with those reported by industry to evaluate the disclosures' accuracy.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, all clinical guidelines in the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP) since 2013 (first year with publicly available industry payment reports) were reviewed on May 1, 2022. Guideline physician authors' name and their reported COI disclosure were extracted from the guideline publication. Payments to physician authors reported by industry were retrieved from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Open Payments database. Physician authors serving on the AAO guideline committee were included.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was the accuracy of authors' COIs disclosure. Secondary outcome measures were payments to physician authors reported by industry, the types of payments, and authors' gender.ResultsA total of 24 AAO guidelines released between 2016 and 2020 were included. Per guideline, there was a mean (SD) of 7.83 (2.24) physician authors. After removing 14 nonphysician authors, 188 physician author names remained, including 83 names assigned as women (44.1%) and 105 names assigned as men (55.9%). Authors could be counted multiple times in these 188 names. According to the Open Payments database, industry reported that 112 of 188 physician authors (59.6%) had at least received 1 payment while serving on the guideline committee, with a payment mean (SD) of $29 849.35 ($54 131.56). According to AAO guidelines, 149 authors (79.3%) had no financial disclosures while serving on the guideline committee. Among these 149 authors, most authors (81 [54.4%]) had payments reported by industry on the Open Payments database not disclosed within the guideline reports. Women physicians were paid significantly more than men for total payments (median [IQR] payments, $15 265 [$598.47-$41 104.67] vs $301.48 [$218.85-$14 615.09]; difference, $14 963.52; P = .003).Conclusions and relevanceIndustry reported physician guideline authors to have received significant industry payments, some of which were not disclosed within information of the guidelines. To strengthen author transparency regarding these reported disclosures, the authors may want to review and resolve such potential discrepancies during the review and subsequent publication of guidelines.
| S-EPMC10020930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:It is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Objective:To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development. Design, Setting, and Participants:Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development. Main Outcomes and Measures:Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively. Results:Of the 49 authors evaluated, 40 received at least 1 reported industry payment, 31 accepted more than $1000, 25 accepted more than $10?000, and 18 accepted more than $50?000. Financial payments amounted to a mean of $157?177 per author. The total reimbursement among the 49 authors from 2013 to 2015 was $7?701?681. Of the 40 authors receiving payments, 22 did not accurately disclose industry relationships. Authors received payments from companies with products directly related to the guideline topic. Violations to the Administrative Regulations were found. Conclusions and Relevance:Dermatology clinical practice guideline authors received sizable industry payments and did not completely disclose these payments. The American Academy of Dermatology policies may benefit from stricter enforcement or the adoption of new standards.
| S-EPMC5817443 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThis report presents updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines summarizing quality requirements for the use of tumor markers.MethodsOne subcommittee developed guidelines for analytical quality relevant to serum and tissue-based tumor markers in current clinical practice. Two other subcommittees formulated recommendations particularly relevant to the developing technologies of microarrays and mass spectrometry.ResultsPrerequisites for optimal use of tumor markers in routine practice include formulation of the correct clinical questions to ensure selection of the appropriate test, adherence to good clinical and laboratory practices (e.g., minimization of the risk of incorrect patient and/or specimen identification, tube type, or timing), use of internationally standardized and well-characterized methods, careful adherence to manufacturer instructions, and proactive and timely reactions to information derived from both internal QC and proficiency-testing specimens. Highly desirable procedures include those designed to minimize the risk of the reporting of erroneous results attributable to interferences such as heterophilic antibodies or hook effects, to facilitate the provision of informative clinical reports (e.g., cumulative and/or graphical reports, appropriately derived reference intervals, and interpretative comments), and when possible to integrate these reports with other patient information through electronic health records. Also mandatory is extensive validation encompassing all stages of analysis before introduction of new technologies such as microarrays and mass spectrometry. Provision of high-quality tumor marker services is facilitated by dialogue involving researchers, diagnostic companies, clinical and laboratory users, and regulatory agencies.ConclusionsImplementation of these recommendations, adapted to local practice, should encourage optimization of the clinical use of tumor markers.
| S-EPMC5564312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults and is intended for use in conjunction with other American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing in adults.MethodsThe AASM commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, the task force adopted foundational recommendations from prior guidelines as "good practice statements", that establish the basis for appropriate and effective diagnosis of OSA. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations.RecommendationsThe following recommendations are intended as a guide for clinicians diagnosing OSA in adults. Under GRADE, a STRONG recommendation is one that clinicians should follow under most circumstances. A WEAK recommendation reflects a lower degree of certainty regarding the outcome and appropriateness of the patient-care strategy for all patients. The ultimate judgment regarding propriety of any specific care must be made by the clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient, available diagnostic tools, accessible treatment options, and resources. Good Practice Statements: Diagnostic testing for OSA should be performed in conjunction with a comprehensive sleep evaluation and adequate follow-up. Polysomnography is the standard diagnostic test for the diagnosis of OSA in adult patients in whom there is a concern for OSA based on a comprehensive sleep evaluation.Recommendations: We recommend that clinical tools, questionnaires and prediction algorithms not be used to diagnose OSA in adults, in the absence of polysomnography or home sleep apnea testing. (STRONG). We recommend that polysomnography, or home sleep apnea testing with a technically adequate device, be used for the diagnosis of OSA in uncomplicated adult patients presenting with signs and symptoms that indicate an increased risk of moderate to severe OSA. (STRONG). We recommend that if a single home sleep apnea test is negative, inconclusive, or technically inadequate, polysomnography be performed for the diagnosis of OSA. (STRONG). We recommend that polysomnography, rather than home sleep apnea testing, be used for the diagnosis of OSA in patients with significant cardiorespiratory disease, potential respiratory muscle weakness due to neuromuscular condition, awake hypoventilation or suspicion of sleep related hypoventilation, chronic opioid medication use, history of stroke or severe insomnia. (STRONG). We suggest that, if clinically appropriate, a split-night diagnostic protocol, rather than a full-night diagnostic protocol for polysomnography be used for the diagnosis of OSA. (WEAK). We suggest that when the initial polysomnogram is negative and clinical suspicion for OSA remains, a second polysomnogram be considered for the diagnosis of OSA. (WEAK).
| S-EPMC5337595 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8072510 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5263087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines contain recommendations for physicians to determine the most appropriate care for patients. These guidelines systematically combine scientific evidence and clinical judgment, culminating in recommendations intended to optimize patient care. The recommendations in CPGs are supported by evidence which varies in quality. We aim to survey the clinical practice guidelines created by the American College of Gastroenterology, report the level of evidence supporting their recommendations, and identify areas where evidence can be improved with additional research.MethodsWe extracted 1328 recommendations from 39 clinical practice guidelines published by the American College of Gastroenterology. Several of the clinical practice guidelines used the differing classifications of evidence for their recommendations. To standardize our results, we devised a uniform system for evidence.ResultsA total of 39 clinical practice guidelines were surveyed in our study. Together they account for 1328 recommendations. 693 (52.2%) of the recommendations were based on low evidence, indicating poor evidence or expert opinion. Among individual guidelines, 13/39 (33.3%) had no recommendations based on high evidence.ConclusionVery few recommendations made by the American College of Gastroenterology are supported by high levels of evidence. More than half of all recommendations made by the American College of Gastroenterology are based on low-quality evidence or expert opinion.
| S-EPMC6169920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of melanoma is rising faster than that of any other preventable cancer in the United States. The American Academy of Dermatology has sponsored free skin cancer education and screenings conducted by volunteer dermatologists in the United States since 1985.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the American Academy of Dermatology's national skin cancer screening program from 1986 to 2014 by analyzing the risk factor profile, access to dermatologic services, and examination results.MethodsWe conducted several detailed statistical analyses of the screening population.ResultsFrom 1986 to 2014, records were available for 2,046,531 screenings, 1,963,141 (96%) of which were subjected to detailed analysis. Men comprised 38% of all participants. The number of annual screenings reached approximately 100,000 in 1990 and remained relatively stable thereafter. From 1991 to 2014 (data for 1995, 1996 and 2000 were unavailable), clinical diagnoses were rendered for 20,628 melanomas, 156,087 dysplastic nevi, 32,893 squamous cell carcinomas, and 129,848 basal cell carcinomas. Only 21% of screenees had a regular dermatologist. Those with a clinical diagnosis of skin cancer were more likely than the general screening population to be uninsured.LimitationsInability to verify clinical diagnoses histopathologically.ConclusionOur findings suggest that the SPOTme program has detected thousands of skin cancers that may have gone undetected or experienced a delay in detection.
| S-EPMC6454210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe American Dental Association (ADA) defines evidence-based dentistry (EBD) as "an approach to oral healthcare that requires the judicious integration of systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence, relating to the oral and medical condition and history, with the dentist's clinical expertise and the patient's treatment needs and preferences." Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. Therefore, ADA CPGs are the most rigorous examples of EBD to inform clinical practice. CPGs should be of the highest level of quality to ensure the appropriateness and timeliness of clinical recommendations.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to measure the methodological rigor and transparency of the ADA CPGs.MethodsEach ADA CPG was appraised by 4 independent assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Quantitative quality scores were obtained for 6 domains and overall quality. In addition, assessors provided a qualitative analysis by providing comments for each item and an appraisal of the full recommendation.ResultsA quality score of 75% was used as the threshold for high-quality guidelines. Using this metric, 6 of the current 10 current ADA CPGs were considered to be of high quality, 1 was slightly below the quality threshold, and 3 were considered marginal. Even among those evaluated to be high quality in overall assessment, certain domains did not reach the quality threshold of 75%.ConclusionOverall, the ADA CPGs collectively provide high-quality guidance for the clinician. While the AGREE appraisal guidelines have been used in CPG development since 2016, there is still room for improvement in certain domains (i.e., stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence).Knowledge transfer statementThe results of this study summarize the methodological rigor and transparency of the 10 current ADA clinical practice guidelines. Since adoption of AGREE standards (2016), CPGs have been uniformly of high quality. The quality of older CPGs was somewhat lower but overall deemed acceptable. Thus, ADA CPGs may be used with confidence to inform practitioners of treatment options supported by rigorous evidence-based dentistry standards. However, there is still room for improvement in methodological quality.
| S-EPMC10029135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTrustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP).ObjectiveTo describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresSystematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings.ResultsFrom 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceThe partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.
| S-EPMC6145658 | biostudies-literature