From authority recommendations to fact-sheets--a future for guidelines

Efficacy of a training programme to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The evidence-based guideline entitled guideline evidence-based health information emerged from the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (DNEbM) and was published in February 2017. The guideline addresses providers of health information and its goal is to improve the quality of health information. In addition, we explored the competences of providers of health information and developed a training programme. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a training programme addressing providers of health information to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information. We expected the intervention to improve the quality of health information in comparison to the provision of the guideline on its own.

METHODS/DESIGN

The trial uses a superiority randomised control group design with 10 months' follow-up. Twenty-six providers of health information (groups with up to ten members) will be enrolled to compare the intervention (guideline and training programme) with usual care (a publicly available guideline). The 5-day training programme comprises an evidence-based medicine training module and a module to prepare the application of the guideline. The primary outcome parameter is the quality of the health information. Quality is operationalised as the extent of adherence to the guideline's recommendations. Each provider will prepare a single health information item informing a health-related decision on a topic freely chosen before randomisation. The quality of this information will be rated using the Mapping Health Information Quality (MAPPinfo) Checklist. An accompanying process evaluation will then be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The study results should show whether the efficacy of the intervention justifies implementation of the training programme to enhance health information developers' competences in evidence-based medicine and to ensure high-quality evidence-based health information (EBHI) in the long term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96941060. Registered on 7 March 2019.

Evidence base in guideline generation in diabetes

During recent years much emphasis has been on the validity, reliability, reproducibility, clinical applicability, clarity, multidisciplinary process, scheduled review and documentation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Still, CPGs show substantial variance in methodological quality. The present paper mainly focuses on two aspects that are particularly critical and contemporary from the perspective of evidence-based medicine: patient centredness and shared decision making, and conflict of interest. Sophisticated patient and consumer involvement at all stages of CPG development could be judged as being the gold standard. However, co-opting patients or consumer representatives and using other techniques of active patient involvement does not replace individual patient preferences in clinical decision-making processes. Current CPGs do not meet patient needs, since they do not provide concise, easy-to-read summaries of the benefits and risks of medicines together with more comprehensive scientific data as a prerequisite for informed or shared decision making. The vast majority of CPG panels have a financial conflict of interest (COI) and under-reporting is common. Not all organisations producing CPGs have set up COI policies, and existing policies vary widely. To solve the problem, CPG experts have recommended that methodologists without any important COI should lead the development process and have primary responsibility. There is a lot of room for other improvements through network transnational activities in the field of CPG development. Waste of time and resources should be avoided through sharing published and unpublished data identified, appraised and extracted for guideline development. The EASD could provide such a clearing house.

Incorporating the patient perspective: a critical review of clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

PURPOSE

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with heart failure and/or ventricular arrhythmias at risk of sudden cardiac death. Guidelines for ICD implantation are derived from robust clinical data. However, critical factors which might influence treatment decisions include patient preferences. We set out to determine how clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) incorporate the patient perspective into supporting decision making about ICDs.

METHODS

CPGs on ICD implantation were purposively selected from national and professional bodies in Europe, North America and Australasia. CPGs were then appraised according to three key domains of shared decision making: (a) informing patients about the risks, benefits and consequences known to be important to patients; (b) personalising risks and benefits and (c) involvement of patient (plus family/significant others if desired) in decision making.

RESULTS

Appraisal of six current CPGs found major deficiencies or inconsistencies in guidance. CPGs tended to focus on evidence of device effectiveness, with sparse consideration of other outcomes important to patients such as impacts on quality of life and psychosocial well-being. Little reference was made to involvement of the patient in decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

This suggests that embedding shared decision in CPGs will improve the patient-centeredness of ICD treatment by enabling patients to make informed, value-based decisions. Specific recommendations for CPG development include the need for signposting to preference sensitive decision points as well as inclusion of a broader range of outcomes which are known to be important to patients when deciding whether or not to have a device fitted.

Antidiabetic treatment: Though lovers be lost, love shall not

The new position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of antidiabetic treatment. It emphasises the necessity to individualise management based on patient needs. Glycaemic targets should also be pursued on an individualised basis. New therapeutic combinations are discussed, and the uncertainty surrounding the ideal choice is acknowledged. Above all, it is the mindful and experienced clinician who will implement the best available evidence towards flexible and efficacious treatment. Some areas of uncertainty may ensue, but it is expected that the new position statement will improve patient healthcare and treatment satisfaction. This now remains to be seen in practice.