Guideline Development Process Research Articles

Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer-Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4 and 6 Inhibitors: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.

ASCO Rapid Recommendation Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options. Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, online only).

Update of the World Health Organization's Mental Health Gap Action Programme Guideline for Psychoses (Including Schizophrenia).

The World Health Organization's (WHOs) Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) aims to improve healthcare for mental, neurological, and substance use disorders in nonspecialized settings, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). mhGAP includes guidelines for the treatment of psychoses (including schizophrenia), which were recently updated in 2023. The complexity of the WHO guideline update process and the updated recommendations on psychoses are presented. The WHO guideline development process is outlined as well as the evidence appraisal and the translation of the evidence into recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The guideline update process includes a review of the literature, a compilation of systematic reviews, and extracting data related to critical and important outcomes. The updated recommendations and the justifying evidence are discussed. The WHO mhGAP guidelines for psychoses are adapted to LMICs, and consist of 13 recommendations in 2023, whereof 5 were updated, and 1 recommendation was newly developed. Background information on how these recommendations were obtained, and significant changes since the previous guideline update in 2015 are provided. Unlike other guidelines, the WHO must consider various countries, contextual factors, and the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines when developing its guidelines. A transformation of the WHO guideline for psychoses into a living guideline would ensure always up-to-date recommendations and facilitate shared decision-making.

Protocol for the development of a consensus practice guideline To address clinical and regulatory barriers to buprenorphine dispensing in community pharmacy

BackgroundLess than half of community pharmacies in the United States stock buprenorphine products indicated for the treatment of opioid use disorder. This lack of access to buprenorphine in community pharmacies is a significant barrier to care. To address this issue, this protocol outlines a comprehensive approach to develop a practice guideline aimed at improving access to safe and effective opioid use disorder treatment in community pharmacies.MethodsThe guideline development process will proceed in three phases, following a technique closely aligned with the Institute of Medicine’s guidance on guideline development. The first phase will involve conducting qualitative interviews with pharmacists in three states to identify their beliefs toward buprenorphine dispensing. As limitations on buprenorphine supply are related to constraints at all levels of the drug supply and regulatory system, the second phase, we will recruit representatives from regulatory agencies, pharmacy organizations, the Drug Enforcement Administration, pharmaceutical wholesalers as well as addiction medicine physicians and psychiatric pharmacists to develop consensus recommendations through a modified Delphi design. This will be followed by a public comment period and external expert review of the recommendations led by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. Finally, in the third phase, a national, mixed media dissemination campaign will be led by the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) to convey recommendations to practicing pharmacists.DiscussionThe guideline development process aims to incorporate the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and emphasize the importance of addressing the regulatory and pharmacy-specific aspects of care in addition to clinical evidence and guidance. The development of this guideline will provide targeted, multidisciplinary guidance for pharmacists, improving access to safe and effective opioid use disorder treatment in the community setting.PreregistrationThis protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework in March of 2023. Registration may be found at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6S9DY.

Endocrine and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer-Capivasertib-Fulvestrant: ASCO Rapid Recommendation Update.

ASCO Rapid Recommendation Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options. Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, online only).

A narrative review of global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines development processes - The GUidelines Standards (GUS) project

BackgroundClinical and public health guidelines serve to direct clinical practice and policy, based on the best available evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) and national health bodies of many countries have released physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Despite significant overlap in the body of evidence reviewed, the guidelines differ across jurisdictions. This study aimed to review the processes used to develop global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and examine the extent to which they conform with a recommended methodological standard for the development of guidelines. MethodsWe extracted data on nine sets of guidelines from seven jurisdictions (WHO, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States). We rated each set of guidelines as high, medium, or low quality on criteria related to the rigour of the development process. ResultsWe observed variation in the quality of guidelines development processes across jurisdictions and across different criteria. Guidelines received the strongest overall ratings for criteria on clearly describing the evidence selected and stating an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. Guidelines received the weakest overall ratings for criteria related to clearly describing the methods used to formulate the recommendations and reporting external review by experts prior to publication. Evaluated against the selected criteria, the strongest processes were undertaken by the WHO and Canada. ConclusionsReaching agreement on acceptable guideline development processes, as well as the inclusion and appraisal procedures of different types of evidence, would help to strengthen and align future guidelines.

Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons guidelines development: health equity update to standard operating procedure.

The SAGES Guidelines Committee creates evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Due to existing health disparities, recommendations made in these guidelines may have different impacts on different populations. The updates to our standard operating procedure described herein will allow us to produce well-designed guidelines that take these disparities into account and potentially reduce health inequities. This paper outlines updates to the SAGES Guidelines Committee Standard Operating Procedure in order to incorporate issues of heath equity into our guideline development process with the goal of minimizing downstream health disparities. SAGES has developed an evidence-based, standardized approach to consider issues of health equity throughout the guideline development process to allow physicians to better counsel patients and make research recommendations to better address disparities. Societies that promote guidelines within their organization must make an intentional effort to prevent the widening of health disparities as a result of their recommendations. The updates to the Guidelines Committee Standard Operating Procedure will hopefully lead to increased attention to these disparities and provide specific recommendations to reduce them.

A methodological protocol for the development of a national guideline on perioperative management of gastrointestinal tumors in Germany.

The success of abdominal cancer surgery depends not only on the surgery itself but is influenced by the overall perioperative management. Given the multitude of perioperative measures and the ever-increasing number of studies on perioperative management, it is difficult to keep track and provide evidence-based perioperative management. The planned guideline on perioperative management will review the existing evidence and derive treatment recommendations. The processing of the evidence is carried out by 6 working groups according to an 8-step scheme: after drafting the guideline questions in PICO format (1), a systematic literature search is carried out (2), and the records found are screened by two independent reviewers from the coordination team. Subsequently, the full texts of the potentially relevant articles are made available to the working groups for full text screening (3). All articles to be included are reviewed for methodological quality (4) before summary of findings tables are generated (5). In line with the GRADE approach, confidence in the evidence is assessed (6) before a recommendation is derived from the evidence, using a modified GRADE Evidence to Decision Framework (7). Finally, all recommendations are compiled and agreed within the guideline group (8). Guidelines serve as foundation for therapy decisions in everyday clinical practice and should therefore be based on up-to-date research results. However, while primary studies and systematic reviews are critically reviewed for their methodological quality, the process of guideline development is often not comprehensible. A protocol with predefined methodology should therefore create transparency and strengthen confidence in the recommendations. The guideline is registered in the AWMF (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) Guideline Register (088-010OL).

World Federation of Acupuncture-Moxibustion Societies (WFAS) Clinical Practice Guideline on Acupuncture and Moxibustion: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) recommendation summaries: 世界针灸学会联合会《针灸临床实践指南:胃食管反流病》推荐意见概述

The Clinical Practice Guideline on Acupuncture and Moxibustion: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) (WFAS 007.9-2023), officially released by the World Federation of Acupuncture-Moxibustion Societies (WFAS) on October 9, 2023, represents the inaugural acupuncture and moxibustion clinical practice guideline dedicated to GERD globally. This guideline outlines its purpose, scope, target audience, and relevant environments, along with detailing the acupuncture and moxibustion treatment methodology for GERD, as well as the guideline development process and recommendations. This article specifically emphasizes the recommendations of the guideline, highlighting the crucial importance of both the dissemination and adherence to this guideline to standardize acupuncture and moxibustion treatments for GERD. Such standardization plays a pivotal role in the advancement and widespread utilization of acupuncture and moxibustion in the management of GERD.

Patients' values and preferences for health states in allergic rhinitis-An artificial intelligence supported systematic review.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts patients' physical and emotional well-being. Assessing patients' values and preferences (V&P) related to AR is an essential part of patient-centered care and of the guideline development process. We aimed to systematically summarize the information about patients' V&P on AR and its symptoms and impact on daily life. We conducted systematic review in a MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases. We included studies which quantitatively assessed patients' V&P for specific outcomes in AR by assessing utilities, applying discrete choice approaches, or rating and ranking outcomes. We grouped outcomes as AR symptoms, functional status, and care-related patient experience. Study selection and data extraction were supported by the Laser AI tool. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the GRADE approach. Thirty-six studies (41 records) were included: nine utility studies, seven direct-choice studies and 21 studies of rating or ranking outcomes. Utilities were lower with increased AR severity and with the concomitant presence of asthma, but not with whether AR was seasonal or perennial (CoE = low-high). Patients rated AR symptom-related outcomes as more important than those related to care-related patient experience and functional status (CoE = very low-moderate). Nasal symptoms (mainly nasal congestion) followed by breathing disorders, general and ocular symptoms were rated as the symptoms with the highest impact. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of V&P of patients with AR. Patients generally considered nasal symptoms as the most important. Future studies with standardized methods are needed to provide more information on V&P in AR.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update – XII – Recommendations on milk formula supplements with and without probiotics for infants and toddlers with CMA

BackgroundCow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit. ObjectiveThese evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA. MethodsWAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders. ResultsAfter reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as “conditional” following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. ConclusionsIf breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers’ values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable.

"Going into the black box": a policy analysis of how the World Health Organization uses evidence to inform guideline recommendations.

The World Health Organization (WHO) plays a crucial role in producing global guidelines. In response to previous criticism, WHO has made efforts to enhance the process of guideline development, aiming for greater systematicity and transparency. However, it remains unclear whether these changes have effectively addressed these earlier critiques. This paper examines the policy process employed by WHO to inform guideline recommendations, using the update of the WHO Consolidated HIV Testing Services (HTS) Guidelines as a case study. We observed guideline development meetings and conducted semi-structured interviews with key participants involved in the WHO guideline-making process. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. The data were deductively coded and analysed in line with the main themes from a published conceptual framework for context-based evidence-based decision making: introduction, interpretation, and application of evidence. The HTS guideline update was characterized by an inclusive and transparent process, involving a wide range of stakeholders. However, it was noted that not all stakeholders could participate equally due to gaps in training and preparation, particularly regarding the complexity of the Grading Recommendations Assessment Development Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We also found that WHO does not set priorities for which or how many guidelines should be produced each year and does not systematically evaluate the implementation of their recommendations. Our interviews revealed disconnects in the evidence synthesis process, starting from the development of systematic review protocols. While GRADE prioritizes evidence from RCTs, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) heavily emphasized "other" GRADE domains for which little or no evidence was available from the systematic reviews. As a result, expert judgements and opinions played a role in making recommendations. Finally, the role of donors and their presence as observers during GDG meetings was not clearly defined. We found a need for a different approach to evidence synthesis due to the diverse range of global guidelines produced by WHO. Ideally, the evidence synthesis should be broad enough to capture evidence from different types of studies for all domains in the GRADE framework. Greater structure is required in formulating GDGs and clarifying the role of donors through the process.

A Clinical Practice Guideline on the Timing of Surgical Decompression and Hemodynamic Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury and the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Intraoperative Spinal Cord Injury: Introduction, Rationale, and Scope.

Protocol for the development of clinical practice guidelines following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) standards. Acute SCI or intraoperative SCI (ISCI) can have devastating physical and psychological consequences for patients and their families. The treatment of SCI has dramatically evolved over the last century as a result of preclinical and clinical research that has addressed important knowledge gaps, including injury mechanisms, disease pathophysiology, medical management, and the role of surgery. In an acute setting, clinicians are faced with critical decisions on how to optimize neurological recovery in patients with SCI that include the role and timing of surgical decompression and the best strategies for hemodynamic management. The lack of consensus surrounding these treatments has prevented standardization of care across centers and has created uncertainty with respect to how to best manage patients with SCI. ISCI is a feared complication that can occur in the best of hands. Unfortunately, there are no systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines to assist spine surgeons in the assessment and management of ISCI in adult patients undergoing spinal surgery. Given these limitations, it is the objective of this initiative to develop evidence-based recommendations that will inform the management of both SCI and ISCI. This protocol describes the rationale for developing clinical practice guidelines on (i) the timing of surgical decompression in acute SCI; (ii) the hemodynamic management of acute SCI; and (iii) the prevention, identification, and management of ISCI in patients undergoing surgery for spine-related pathology. Systematic reviews were conducted according to PRISMA standards in order to summarize the current body of evidence and inform the guideline development process. The guideline development process followed the approach proposed by the GRADE working group. Separate multidisciplinary, international groups were created to perform the systematic reviews and formulate the guidelines. All potential conflicts of interest were vetted in advance. The sponsors exerted no influence over the editorial process or the development of the guidelines. This process resulted in both systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines/care pathways related to the role and timing of surgery in acute SCI; the optimal hemodynamic management of acute SCI; and the prevention, diagnosis and management of ISCI. The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline initiative was to develop evidence-based recommendations for important areas of controversy in SCI and ISCI in hopes of improving neurological outcomes, reducing morbidity, and standardizing care across settings. Throughout this process, critical knowledge gaps and future directions were also defined.

An Overview of the Methodology Used to Develop Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Acute and Intraoperative Spinal Cord Injury.

An overview of the methods used to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Acute spinal cord injury (SCI) and intraoperative SCI (ISCI) can have devastating physical and psychological consequences for patients and their families. To date, there are several studies that have discussed the diagnostic and management strategies for both SCI and ISCI. CPGs in SCI help to distill and translate the current evidence into actionable recommendations, standardize care across centers, optimize patient outcomes, and reduce costs and unnecessary interventions. Furthermore, they can be used by patients to assist in making decisions about certain treatments and by policy makers to inform allocation of resources. The objective of this article is to summarize the methods used to develop CPGs for the timing of surgery and hemodynamic management of acute SCI, as well as the identification and treatment of ISCI. The CPGs were developed using standards established by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine), the Guideline International Network and several other organizations. Systematic reviews were conducted according to accepted methodological standards (eg, Institute of Medicine, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) in order to summarize the current body of evidence and inform the guideline development process. Protocols for each guideline were created. A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed that included individuals living with SCI as well as clinicians from the broad range of specialties that encounter patients with SCI: spine or trauma surgeons, critical care physicians, rehabilitation specialists, neurologists, anesthesiologists and other healthcare professionals. Individuals living with SCI were also included in the GDG. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence for each critical outcome. The "evidence to recommendation" framework was then used to translate the evidence obtained from the systematic review to an actionable recommendation. This framework provides structure when assessing the body of evidence and considers several additional factors when rating the strength of the recommendation, including the magnitude of benefits and harms, patient preferences, resource use, health equities, acceptability and feasibility. Finally, the CPGs were appraised both internally and externally. The results of the CPGs for SCI are provided in separate articles in this focus issue. Development of these CPGs for SCI followed the methodology proposed by the Institute of Medicine the Guideline International Network and the GRADE Working Group. It is anticipated that these CPGs will assist clinicians implement the best evidence into practice and facilitate shared-decision making with patients.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations on Hemodynamic Management.

Clinical practice guideline development following the GRADE process. Hemodynamic management is one of the only available treatment options that likely improves neurologic outcomes in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Augmenting mean arterial pressure (MAP) aims to improve blood perfusion and oxygen delivery to the injured spinal cord in order to minimize secondary ischemic damage to neural tissue. The objective of this guideline was to update the 2013 AANS/CNS recommendations on the hemodynamic management of patients with acute traumatic SCI, acknowledging that much has been published in this area since its publication. Specifically, we sought to make recommendations on 1. The range of mean arterial pressure (MAP) to be maintained by identifying an upper and lower MAP limit; 2. The duration of such MAP augmentation; and 3. The choice of vasopressor. Additionally, we sought to make a recommendation on spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) targets. A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed that included health care professionals from a wide range of clinical specialities, patient advocates, and individuals living with SCI. The GDG reviewed the 2013 AANS/CNS guidelines and voted on whether each recommendation should be endorsed or updated. A systematic review of the literature, following PRISMA standards and registered in PROSPERO, was conducted to inform the guideline development process and address the following key questions: (i) what are the effects of goal-directed interventions to optimize spinal cord perfusion on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? and (ii) what are the effects of particular monitoring techniques, perfusion ranges, pharmacological agents, and durations of treatment on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? The GDG combined the information from this systematic review with their clinical expertise in order to develop recommendations on a MAP target range (specifically an upper and lower limit to target), the optimal duration for MAP augmentation, and the use of vasopressors or inotropes. Using methods outlined by the GRADE working group, recommendations were formulated that considered the balance of benefits and harms, financial impact, acceptability, feasibility and patient preferences. The GDG suggested that MAP should be augmented to at least 75-80 mmHg as the "lower limit," but not actively augmented beyond an "upper limit" of 90-95mmHg in order to optimize spinal cord perfusion in acute traumatic SCI. The quality of the evidence around the "target MAP" was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is weak. For duration of hemodynamic management, the GDG "suggested" that MAP be augmented for a duration of 3-7days. Again, the quality of the evidence around the duration of MAP support was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is also weak. The GDG felt that a recommendation on the choice of vasopressor or the use of SCPP targets was not warranted, given the dearth of available evidence. We provide new recommendations for blood pressure management after acute SCI that acknowledge the limitations of the current evidence on the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery. It was felt that the low quality of existing evidence and uncertainty around the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery justified a greater range of MAP to target, and for a broader range of days post-injury than recommended in previous guidelines. While important knowledge gaps still remain regarding hemodynamic management, these recommendations represent current perspectives on the role of MAP augmentation for acute SCI.

The 2023 AO Spine-Praxis Guidelines in Acute Spinal Cord Injury: What Have We Learned? What Are the Critical Knowledge Gaps and Barriers to Implementation?

Narrative summary of the 2023 AO Spine-Praxis clinical practice guidelines for management in acute spinal cord injury (SCI). The objective of this article is to summarize the key findings of the clinical practice guidelines for the optimal management of traumatic and intraoperative SCI (ISCI). This article will also highlight potential knowledge translation opportunities for each recommendation and discuss important knowledge gaps and areas of future research. Systematic reviews were conducted according to accepted methodological standards to evaluate the current body of evidence and inform the guideline development process. The summarized evidence was reviewed by a multidisciplinary guidelines development group that consisted of international multidisciplinary stakeholders. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence for each critical outcome and the "evidence to recommendation" framework was used to formulate the final recommendations. The key recommendations regarding the timing of surgical decompression, hemodynamic management, and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of ISCI are summarized. While a strong recommendation was made for early surgery, further prospective research is required to define what constitutes sufficient surgical decompression, examine the role of ultra-early surgery, and assess the impact of early surgery in different SCI phenotypes, including central cord syndrome. Furthermore, additional investigation is required to evaluate the impact of mean arterial blood pressure targets on neurological recovery and to determine the utility of spinal cord perfusion pressure measurements. Finally, there is a need to examine the role of neuroprotective agents for the treatment of ISCI and to prospectively validate the new AO Spine-Praxis care pathway for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of ISCI. To optimize the translation of these guidelines into practice, important barriers to their implementation, particularly in underserved areas, need to be explored. Ultimately, these recommendations will help to establish more personalized approaches to care for SCI patients. The recommendations from the 2023 AO Spine-Praxis guidelines not only highlight the current best practice in the management of SCI, but reveal critical knowledge gaps and barriers to implementation that will help to guide further research efforts in SCI.

Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea.

Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.

Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines

ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines. Study Design and SettingWe searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement. ResultsWe found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%–100%). ConclusionThere is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.

Application of the PANELVIEW instrument to evaluate the guideline development process of the German polytrauma guideline.

PANELVIEW is an instrument for evaluating the appropriateness of the process, methods, and outcome of guideline development and the satisfaction of the guideline group with these steps. To evaluate the guideline development process of the German guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries ('German polytrauma guideline') from the perspective of the guideline group, and to identify areas where this process may be improved in the future. We administered PANELVIEW to the participants of the 2022 update of the German polytrauma guideline. All guideline group members, including delegates of participating medical societies, steering group members, authors of guideline chapters, the chair, and methodological lead, were invited to participate. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comments received were categorised by domains/items of the tool. After the first, second, and last consensus conference, the guideline group was invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Response rates were 36% (n/N = 13/36), 40% (12/30), and 37% (20/54), respectively. The mean scores for items ranged between 5.1 and 6.9 on a scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). Items with mean scores below 6.0 were related to (1) administration, (2) consideration of patients' views, perspectives, values, and preferences, and (3) the discussion of research gaps and needs for future research. The PANELVIEW tool showed that the guideline group was satisfied with most aspects of the guideline development process. Areas for improvement of the process were identified. Strategies to improve response rates should be explored.

AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases.

Guideline. To develop an international guideline (AOGO) about the use of osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative spine conditions. The guideline development process was guided by AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative (KF Degen) and followed the Guideline International Network McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. The process involved 73 participants with expertise in degenerative spine diseases and surgery from 22 countries. Fifteen systematic reviews were conducted addressing respective key topics and evidence was collected. The methodologist compiled the evidence into GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. Guideline panel members judged the outcomes and other criteria and made the final recommendations through consensus. Five conditional recommendations were created. A conditional recommendation is about the use of allograft, autograft or a cage with an osteobiologic in primary ACDF surgery. Other conditional recommendations are about the use of osteobiologic for single- or multi-level ACDF, and for hybrid construct surgery. It is suggested that surgeons use other osteobiologics rather than human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) in common clinical situations. Surgeons are recommended to choose 1 graft over another or 1 osteobiologic over another primarily based on clinical situation, and the costs and availability of the materials. This AOGO guideline is the first to provide recommendations for the use of osteobiologics in ACDF. Despite the comprehensive searches for evidence, there were few studies completed with small sample sizes and primarily as case series with inherent risks of bias. Therefore, high-quality clinical evidence is demanded to improve the guideline.

Developing the Lebanese health economic evaluation guideline

ABSTRACT Objective To report on the process of developing the Lebanese Economic Evaluation Guidelines (LEEG), and to provide relevant material that could assist guideline developers in the future. Methods The development of the LEEG closely followed the process proposed by the World Health Organization, i.e. to set up a Guideline Development Group (composed of three Lebanese experts), to establish the rationale for developing the guideline in Lebanon, to identify its scope, to search and retrieve evidence through two systematic reviews, to assess and present the evidence, to translate the evidence into guidelines and recommendations through a deliberative process, and to consult international experts. The deliberative process included a survey, an in-person interview, and a consensus workshop with sixteen Lebanese key stakeholders. Data was collected and quantitative analysis was conducted using SPSS software. International experts from The Netherlands were consulted for issuing the LEEG. Supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH), the LEEG will be available for public consultation on the MoPH’s webpage, and a final version will be made available thereafter. Conclusion Clear and transparent reporting of the guideline development process should support international organizations as well as other developers in establishing their guidelines within their national context.