Process Of Guideline Production Research Articles

GRADE Notes 2: Criteria for searching non-randomized or indirect evidence should be defined early in the guideline production process

ObjectiveTo discuss two alternative approaches for complementing the body of direct evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) when it is judged insufficient from a guideline panel making recommendations. The approaches included expanding the evidence's body to non-randomises studies on the population of interest or to RCTs on indirect populations. Study Design and SettingIn this report, we adopt the perspective of an evidence review team developing guidelines following the GRADE approach. Our experience is based on the development of two evidence-based guidelines promoted by The Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) and focusing on diagnosis and treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in children/adolescents and adults. ResultsWe left panel members deciding case by case whether the direct evidence from RCTs was sufficient or not and indicating which alternative to implement. This strategy presented unanticipated challenges both from an organizational and methodological standpoint. ConclusionWe suggest an early-stage production of a research protocol to define the criteria for expanding the body of evidence. These criteria should be informed by considerations around the certainty in the evidence, the clinical applicability of the results, feasibility and conflict of interest.

Patient and caregiver involvement in the formulation of guideline questions: findings from the European Academy of Neurology guideline on palliative care of people with severe multiple sclerosis.

Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guideline development is recommended to increase guideline trustworthiness and relevance. The aim was to engage multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and caregivers in the definition of the key questions to be answered in the European Academy of Neurology guideline on palliative care of people with severe MS. A mixed methods approach was used: an international online survey launched by the national MS societies of eight countries, after pilot testing/debriefing on 20 MS patients and 18 caregivers, focus group meetings of Italian and German MS patients and caregivers. Of 1199 participants, 951 (79%) completed the whole online survey and 934 from seven countries were analysed: 751 (80%) were MS patients (74% women, mean age 46.1) and 183 (20%) were caregivers (36% spouses/partners, 72% women, mean age 47.4). Participants agreed/strongly agreed on inclusion of the nine pre-specified topics (from 89% for 'advance care planning' to 98% for 'multidisciplinary rehabilitation'), and <5% replied 'I prefer not to answer' to any topic. There were 569 free comments: 182 (32%) on the pre-specified topics, 227 (40%) on additional topics (16 guideline-pertinent) and 160 (28%) on outcomes. Five focus group meetings (three of MS patients, two of caregivers, and overall 35 participants) corroborated the survey findings. In addition, they allowed an explanation of the guideline production process and the exploration of patient-important outcomes and of taxing issues. Multiple sclerosis patient and caregiver involvement was resource and time intensive, but rewarding. It was the key for the formulation of the 10 guideline questions and for the identification of patient-important outcomes.

Quality assessment of clinical guidelines for the treatment of obesity in adults: application of the AGREE II instrument.

There are various guidelines for the treatment of obesity, and thus the quality of these clinical guidelines has become a matter of concern. The objective was to describe and assess the quality of clinical guidelines for treatment of obesity in adults. We collected several studies, dated from 1998 to 2016, produced by different countries. The literature search included the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, webpages of health institutions from different countries, and search sites, with the criterion: "clinical guidelines for treatment of obesity in adults and published until the 2016". The guidelines were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II), according to the domains of the instrument. The search identified 21 guidelines: nine from Europe, six from North America, three from Latin America, and one each from Asia and Oceania and a transnational association. The Australian guideline had the best assessment. Of the six guidelines with the highest scores, five had been elaborated by the government sector responsible for the country's health. The domains "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentation" had the highest score. Except for the Canadian guideline, the three guidelines drafted before the elaboration of AGREE II had the worst quality. In the domain "stakeholder involvement", only four guidelines (Australia, Scotland, France, and England) mentioned patient participation. Guideline development and quality enhancement are ongoing processes requiring systematic appraisal of the guideline production process and existing guidelines.

Improving the user experience of patient versions of clinical guidelines: user testing of a Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) patient version.

BackgroundGuideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public, and knowledge of what the public want from them is also increasing. The aim of this study was to user test a patient version of a SIGN clinical guideline that was designed based on preliminary work for the DECIDE project. SIGN is the leading national guideline producer in Scotland.MethodsPeople with a diagnosis of glaucoma and non-professional carers were recruited from across Scotland. User testing was conducted using a think-aloud protocol method. Each session was conducted by one interviewer and one observer. All sessions were recorded and transcribed. The data was analysed, problems with the guideline were identified and resolved and key findings were themed using a user experience model.ResultsThirteen user testing sessions with people with glaucoma and one with a carer were conducted. Key facilitators of desirability and usability identified include clear branding as a patient version and a clearly described purpose, audience and contents page. Other facilitators include a “friendly” tone which is achieved by the use of colour, quotes, icons, simple language and charts, and brief chunked text.The value and usefulness of the patient guideline was influenced by its ability to: inform the public, link information to actions, and empower people in their interaction with healthcare professionals. Participants were disappointed by the lack of information on treatment in the patient version, which was outside its scope.Information on the evidence based guideline production process and the involvement of appropriately skilled professionals was key to the credibility of the guideline. Lack of awareness of guidelines and guideline producing bodies, is a potentially serious threat to findability/accessibility.ConclusionsIt is important for guideline producers to maximise the user experience of the public when they access patient versions of guidelines, particularly given the current low level of access and awareness. One size does not fit all and guideline producers need to strike a balance between keeping the patient version simple and providing sufficient information to facilitate shared decision making and empower the public. Guideline producers may find the results of this study useful in designing their own patient versions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1287-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do Cochrane systematic reviews meet WHO needs?

Keywords: Cochrane reviews; GRADE methodology; implementation; observational studies; randomized clinical trials; WHO guidelines

Guidelines, Guidelines, Guidelines

Over the past decade, clinical guidelines for nutrition therapy in the critically ill have been developed by different North American societies. To avoid target audience confusion and uncertainty, there is a need to undergo a review of the content of these guidelines. In this review, the authors compared the grading systems, the levels of evidence used, and the content of North American nutrition clinical guidelines. The 3 clinical guidelines that met their search criteria and hence were included in the comparison are the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines, the American Dietetics Association's evidence-based guideline for critical illness, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition's joint guideline. Through their comparison, the authors have shown that although there are several topics where there is a similar direction of recommendation across the 3 societies/organizations, there are stark contrasts among many of the recommendations. These major differences can be attributed to the admission of different populations, lower levels of evidence or expert opinion into the guideline production process, lack of clarity in the link between the evidence and the recommendation, and lack of uniformity in the reporting of levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. The authors have identified the need for the North American nutrition organizations to harmonize the development of future nutrition guidelines in a timely way, so that they remain current and up-to-date. Furthermore, guideline users need to be aware of the dissimilarities in these guidelines before applying the recommendations to their daily practice.

UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: treatment of traumatically intruded permanent incisor teeth in children

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2010 Summary. The process of guideline production began in 1994, resulting in first publication in 1997. Each guideline has been circulated to all Consultants in Paediatric Dentistry in the UK, to the Council of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry, and to people of related specialties recognised to have expertise in the subject. The final version of the guideline is produced from a combination of this input and thorough review of the published literature. The intention is to encourage improvement in clinical practice and to stimulate research and clinical audit in areas where scientific evidence is inadequate. Evidence underlying recommendations is scored according to the SIGN classification and guidelines should be read in this context. For those wishing further detail, the process of guideline production in the UK is described in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1997; 7: 267–268.

UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: Use of fissure sealants including management of the stained fissure in first permanent molars.

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2010 Summary. The process of guideline production began in 1994, resulting in first publication in 1997. Each guideline has been circulated to all Consultants in Paediatric Dentistry in the UK, to the Council of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD), and to people of related specialties recognised to have expertise in the subject. The final version of the guideline is produced from a combination of this input and thorough review of the published literature. The intention is to encourage improvement in clinical practice and to stimulate research and clinical audit in areas where scientific evidence is inadequate. Evidence underlying recommendations is scored according to the SIGN classification and guidelines should be read in this context. For those wishing further detail, the process of guideline production in the UK is described in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1997; 7: 267-268. This guideline is an update on the previously published BSPD policy document on fissure sealants. (Nunn etal., Int J Paed Dent 2000; 10: 174-177).

UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry

SummaryThe process of guideline production began in 1994, resulting in first publication in 1997. Each guideline has been circulated to all Consultants in Paediatric Dentistry in the UK, to the Council of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry, and to people of related specialties recognised to have expertise in the subject. The final version of the guideline is produced from a combination of this input and thorough review of the published literature. The intention is to encourage improvement in clinical practice and to stimulate research and clinical audit in areas where scientific evidence is inadequate. Evidence underlying recommendations is scored according to the SIGN classification and guidelines should be read in this context. For those wishing further detail, the process of guideline production in the UK is described in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1997; 7: 267–268.

Canadian Thoracic Society: Presenting a New Process for Clinical Practice Guideline Production

A key mandate of the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) is to promote evidence-based respiratory care through clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). To improve the quality and validity of the production, dissemination and implementation of its CPGs, the CTS has revised its guideline process and has created the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee to oversee this process. The present document outlines the basic methodological tools and principles of the new CTS guideline production process. Important features include standard methods for choosing and formulating optimal questions and for finding, appraising, and summarizing the evidence; use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for rating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations; use of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument for quality control during and after guideline development and for appraisal of other guidelines; use of the ADAPTE process for adaptation of existing guidelines to the local context; and use of the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal tool to augment implementability of guidelines. The CTS has also committed to develop guidelines in new areas, an annual guideline review cycle, and a new formal process for dissemination and implementation. Ultimately, it is anticipated that these changes will have a significant impact on the quality of care and clinical outcomes of individuals suffering from respiratory diseases across Canada.

UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: diagnosis, prevention and management of dental erosion

This revised Clinical Guideline in Paediatric Dentistry replaces the previously published ninth guideline (Shaw L, O'Sullivan E. Int J Paediatr Dent 2000; 10: 356-365). The process of guideline production began in 1994, resulting in first publication in 1997. Each guideline has been circulated widely for consultation to all UK consultants in paediatric dentistry, council members of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD), and to people of related specialities recognized to have expertise in the subject. The final version of this guideline is produced from a combination of this input and thorough review of the published literature. In the case of the present guideline, an internationally recognized expert in the field was invited to be a co-author (AM). The intention is to encourage improvement in clinical practice and to stimulate research and clinical audit in areas where scientific evidence is inadequate. Evidence underlying recommendations is scored according to the SIGN classification and guidelines should be read in this context. Further details regarding the process of paediatric dentistry guideline production in the UK is described in the Int J Paediatr Dent 1997; 7: 267-268.

UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars

This revised Clinical Guideline in Paediatric Dentistry replaces the previously published sixth guideline (Fayle SA. Int J Paediatr Dent 1999; 9: 311-314). The process of guideline production began in 1994, resulting in first publication in 1997. Each guideline has been circulated widely for consultation to all UK consultants in paediatric dentistry, council members of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD), and to people of related specialities recognized to have expertise in the subject. The final version of this guideline is produced from a combination of this input and thorough review of the published literature. The intention is to encourage improvement in clinical practice and to stimulate research and clinical audit in areas where scientific evidence is inadequate. Evidence underlying recommendations is scored according to the SIGN classification and guidelines should be read in this context. Further details regarding the process of paediatric dentistry guideline production in the UK is described in the Int J Paediatr Dent 1997; 7: 267-268.

Respiratory Guidelines Implementation in Canada

Practice guidelines on respiratory diseases have been published in Canada over the past two decades. Canada has led the way with regard to the production of evidence-based recommendations on optimal care, and guidelines are now available in a large variety of domains, both nationally and internationally. There was, however, until recently, no structured plan to ensure timely revision of Canadian respiratory guidelines, their rapid and effective dissemination, and particularly, no joint implementation strategy to help translate the recommendations into current care in the most effective way. Recognizing these limitations, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) has therefore established a new strategy to address those needs, with a particular focus on collaborative work to more efficiently review the guidelines so that more resources are devoted to their implementation, particularly in primary care.

Pulp therapy for primary molars

International Journal of Paediatric DentistryVolume 16, Issue s1 p. 15-23 Pulp therapy for primary molars H. D. RODD, H. D. RODDSearch for more papers by this authorP. J. WATERHOUSE, P. J. WATERHOUSESearch for more papers by this authorA. B. FUKS, A. B. FUKSSearch for more papers by this authorS. A. FAYLE, S. A. FAYLESearch for more papers by this authorM. A. MOFFAT, M. A. MOFFATSearch for more papers by this author H. D. RODD, H. D. RODDSearch for more papers by this authorP. J. WATERHOUSE, P. J. WATERHOUSESearch for more papers by this authorA. B. FUKS, A. B. FUKSSearch for more papers by this authorS. A. FAYLE, S. A. FAYLESearch for more papers by this authorM. A. MOFFAT, M. A. MOFFATSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 August 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00774.xCitations: 122 Professor Helen Rodd, Department of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, Sheffield, UK. E-mail: h.d.rodd@sheffield.ac.uk This revised Clinical Guideline in Paediatric Dentistry replaces the previously published eighth Guideline entitled ‘The pulp treatment of the primary dentition’ [Llewelyn, 2000]. The process of guideline production began in 1994, resulting in first publication in 1997. Each guideline has been circulated to all Consultants in Paediatric Dentistry in the UK, to the Council of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry, and to people of related specialties recognised to have expertise in the subject. In the case of the present guideline, an internationally recognised expert on primary pulp therapy was invited to be a co-author (ABF). The final version of the guideline is produced from a combination of this input and thorough review of the published literature. The intention is to encourage improvement in clinical practice and to stimulate research and clinical audit in areas where scientific evidence is inadequate. Evidence underlying recommendations is scored according to the SIGN classification and guidelines should be read in this context. For those wishing further detail, the process of guideline production in the UK is described in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1997; 7: 267–268. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume16, Issues1September 2006Pages 15-23 RelatedInformation

UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry*

The twelfth National Clinical Guideline in Paediatric Dentistry is published here. The process of guideline production began in 1994, resulting in first publication in 1997. Each guideline has a nominated main author but the content is not a personal view; it represents rather a consensus of opinion of current best clinical practice. Each guideline has been circulated to all consultants in paediatric dentistry in the UK, to the Council of the BSPD, and to people of related specialities recognized to have expertise in the subject. The final version of the guideline is produced from a combination of this input and thorough review of published literature. The intention is to encourage improvement in clinical practice and to stimulate research and clinical audit in areas where scientific evidence is inadequate. Evidence underlying recommendations is scored according to the SIGN classification and guidelines should be read in this context. For those wishing further detail, the process of guideline production in the UK is described in International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1997; 7 : 267–268.