A71 RECOMMENDATION REVERSALS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Abstract

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based resources designed to inform clinical decision making. Often, superior evidence will support the inclusion of novel procedures and practices to replace older recommendations. Recommendation reversals occur when (a) superior quality evidence emerges to suggest the harm or non-beneficence of prior recommendations, and (b) that recommendation is not supplanted by a newer one. Aims The primary objective of this study was to describe the content, frequency and rationale for recommendation reversals in CPGs published by gastroenterological societies. Methods For this meta-epidemiologic study, we considered two criteria to define a recommendation reversal: (a) the more recent CPG makes a recommendation that contradicts a previously accepted practice; and (b) the prior recommendation is not replaced by any novel intervention. We searched CPGs published by 20 major GI societies from 1991- 2019. Guidelines were included if had at least two iterations with the same title and used a valid evidence rating system (such as GRADE). Explicit recommendations which reported definite levels of evidence and strength of recommendation were extracted. Results We identified 1022 clinical guidelines from GI societies over 28 years. 292 CPGs were included for data synthesis. 5985 explicit statements were extracted. 12 reversals were confirmed and are summarized in the Table. Six reversals (50.0%) occurred due to studies reporting non-beneficence and 3 (25.0%) occrred due to studies reporting harm. Three recommendations (25.0%) were reversed due to new clinical trials; 3 (25.0%) due to systematic reviews or meta-analyses; and 2 to conform with CPGs of other societies (16.7%). Conclusions We describe recommendation reversals made in gastroenterology CPGs, and the reasons thereof. Investigation of recommendation reversals allows for the identification of low-value medical practices. This reinforces the need for GI CPG committees to (1) iteratively review guidelines to re-evaluate recommendations made on low-quality evidence and; (2) refrain from making recommendations when evidence for the same is weak. Funding Agencies None