Methodological approaches for developing, reporting, and assessing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: A systematic survey

Systematic review, methodological appraisal, and recommendation mapping of clinical practice guidelines for managing patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis

PURPOSE

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE II) was developed to enhance the methodological rigor of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), aiming to generate trustworthy recommendations for various clinical scenarios. Despite its importance, there exists a gap in the quality of CPGs pertaining to Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SJS-TEN). The aim of the study was to evaluate SJS-TEN CPGs to shed light on areas for enhancing SJS-TEN guidelines' quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify SJS-TEN CPGs from January 2011 to December 2023 across bibliographic and guideline databases, as well as dermatology association websites. Four reviewers employed the AGREE II instrument to appraise the quality of eligible CPGs. Subsequently, AGREE II domain scores were calculated and their recommendations mapped.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Seven eligible SJS-TEN CPGs reviewed, originating from Europe, North America, Asia, and an authorship Group. The highest AGREE II domain scores were observed in scope and purpose (mean: 63%, standard deviation [SD]: 23.195%) and clarity of presentation (mean: 70%, SD: 14.5%). Conversely, the lowest score was noted in the applicability domain (mean: 28%, SD: 17.44%). Only two guidelines by the British Association of Dermatologists (28.6%) met the 'recommend' level. Recommendations from all CPGs were compared in tabular form.

Interventions for Reducing Mental Health-Related Stigma in Emergency Medicine: An Integrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence and impact of mental health disorders are increasing worldwide. A growing number of people with mental health problems require ambulance and emergency department care, many of whom face stigmatization from health care professionals in these environments. Interpersonal stigma comprises insufficient knowledge (ignorance or misinformation), negative attitudes (negative emotional reactions, such as prejudice), and negative behaviors (such as avoidance or rejection).

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted to assess the current landscape of interventions aimed at reducing stigmatization among health care professionals in ambulance and emergency department settings.

RESULTS

Of the 18 publications included, 1 targeted stigma reduction. Although 2 additional studies examined interventions not specifically aimed at reducing stigma, these studies have examined the impact of interventions on stigma. The other included studies reported measures of attitudes. One study involved patients evaluating the intervention, whereas the rest relied on assessments by health care professionals. Four studies mentioned patient involvement in the development of interventions. The predominant approach in these studies involved educational and training interventions associated with improvements in knowledge levels and attitudes. However, the direct impact of these changes on reducing stigmatizing behavior remains unclear. It is concerning that national practice guidelines in ambulance and emergency care hardly address mental health-related stigma despite longstanding awareness of this issue.

DISCUSSION

The findings underscore the urgent need for concerted efforts in practice, research, and policy within ambulance and emergency department settings to address and combat stigmatizing behaviors toward patients with mental health challenges by enhancing knowledge and reshaping attitudes.

Enhancing health equity considerations in guidelines: health equity extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist

Background

Practice guidelines may reduce health inequities by addressing preventable and unjust differences in health. However, health equity considerations are often inadequately integrated into the guideline planning and development process. This article describes a pragmatic approach to enhancing health equity considerations within guidelines by introducing an extension to the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC).

Methods

We reviewed the latest guidance on enhancing health equity considerations in guideline development to draft the checklist and deployed a global online survey from March 27th, 2024, to May 13th, 2024 to gather consensus. We conducted a methodological review of guideline development handbooks to identify best practices in health equity considerations. An advisory board comprised of diverse interest-holders informed the development of the checklist. We made revisions based on the survey feedback and review findings.

Findings

We present 21 extension items spanning 16 of the 18 guideline development topics from the GIN-McMaster GDC. Key additions include planning for engagement with individuals experiencing inequities in guideline development activities, applying an equity lens, and considering health equity in recommendation formulation, dissemination and implementation strategies. This checklist gives value to lived experiences to enrich health equity assessments, complementing empirical evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Guideline developers should assess guideline sensitivity to health equity to determine resource prioritization for optimal implementation of the extension items.

Interpretation

The GIN-McMaster health equity extension provides guidance for the streamlined integration of health equity considerations throughout the guideline development process. Using this tool alongside the original GIN-McMaster GDC may lead to more equitable and impactful guidelines.

Funding

This project was partially funded by Public Health Agency of Canada. The funder was not involved in the conceptualization or design or the conduct of the project.

Applicability of heart failure clinical practice guidelines in low- and middle-income countries

AIMS

Clinical practice guidelines are commonly written by professional societies in high-income countries (HIC) with limited anticipation of implementation obstacles in other environments. We used heart failure (HF) guidelines as a paradigm to examine this concern, by conducting a survey to understand clinicians' ability to implement HF guidelines and their perceptions of the current HF guideline applicability in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

METHODS AND RESULTS

An online survey of physicians in the database of the Translational Medicine Academy who treat HF patients was offered by email from 5 October to 27 November 2023, inquiring of participants' demographic information, experience, and views of HF guidelines as related to their practice. Of 2622 participating clinicians, 1592 partially completed, and an additional 1030 fully completed the survey. Participants were from 138 countries; 668 practiced in HIC, and 1954 in LMIC. Those from LMIC regarded HF guidelines to be less applicable in their country than did those from HIC (p = 0.0002). Of all those responding, 75.3% indicated that it was somewhat or mostly true that the HF guidelines were mostly applicable to HIC. Those from LMIC, but not HIC indicated that the greatest implementation obstacle was that the guidelines were for HIC (51.3% vs. 43.1%; p = 0.0387). A significantly higher proportion of respondents from LMIC indicated that resources for caring for their patients were somewhat or mostly limiting in most cases, than did those in HIC (41.6% vs. 32.5%, p = 0.0068).

CONCLUSION

This survey examined the widely-held thought that HF guidelines are broadly applicable to all regions of the world, concluding that such a perception is incorrect. Clinicians from LMIC view the absence of consideration of local resource limitations as the greatest obstacle for guideline implementation. The results regarding HF guidelines likely also have implications for other guidelines and resultant patient outcomes.

Evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways used in rural and remote Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review protocol is to scope the extent and type of evidence describing evaluations of clinical practice guidelines, protocols, and pathways that are used in the rural and remote areas of Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION

Given the important role that clinical guidance resources can play in minimizing health disparities, it will be useful to understand what resources are being used in rural and remote health contexts and how these are being developed, implemented, and evaluated.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Records will be included from 3 high-income countries which have rural or remote regions and First Nations populations. Records will only be included if they explicitly identify the clinical guidance resource, have the resource as a primary focus of the evaluation, and show that the resource has been endorsed or implemented for use in the rural or remote health service. Evaluations of point-of-care testing instruments will be excluded, as well as records from aged care facilities, even if they are from rural and remote areas.

METHODS

The JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Emcare (Ovid), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google. Records in English will be considered for inclusion. Covidence will be used to remove duplicates and organize the selection review process. Data will be extracted using a data charting tool created by the authors. The results will be analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and presented as a series of tables and a narrative summary.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

The review has been registered on Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6EM32.

A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.

METHODS

From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.

RESULTS

A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.

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

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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 systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for the management of pain, sedation, delirium and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care

Introduction

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations for managing pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care (PICU). The objectives included evaluating the quality of recommendations, synthesizing recommendations, harmonizing the strength of the recommendation (SoR) and the certainty of evidence (CoE), and assessing the relevance of supporting evidence.

Methods

A comprehensive search in four electronic databases (Medline, Embase.com, CINAHL and JBI EBP Database), 9 guideline repositories, and 13 professional societies was conducted to identify CPGs published from January 2010 to the end of May 2023 in any language. The quality of CPGs and recommendations was assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize recommendations, and the GRADE SoR and CoE harmonization method was used to interpret the credibility of summary recommendations.

Results

A total of 18 CPGs and 170 recommendations were identified. Most CPGs were of medium-quality, and three were classified as high. A total of 30 summary recommendations were synthesized across each condition, focused on common management approaches. There was inconsistency in the SoRs and CoE for summary recommendations, those for assessment showed the highest consistency, the remaining were conditional, inconsistent, inconclusive, and lacked support from evidence.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides an overview of the quality of CPGs for these four conditions in the PICU. While three CPGs achieved high-quality ratings, the overall findings reveal gaps in the evidence base of recommendations, patient and family involvement, and resources for implementation. The findings highlight the need for more rigorous and evidence-based approaches in the development and reporting of CPGs to enhance their trustworthiness. Further research is necessary to enhance the quality of recommendations for this setting. The results of this review can provide a valuable foundation for future CPG development.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=274364, PROSPERO (CRD42021274364).

Adapting global evidence-based practice guidelines to the Egyptian healthcare context: the Egyptian Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee (EPG) initiative

Background

In Egypt, academic organizations, professional societies, and research groups develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in order to improve patient quality care and safety. Although important improvements have been made over the past years, many of these consensus-based guideline documents still lack the transparency and methodological rigor of international standards and methodologies recommended by reference evidence-based healthcare and guideline organizations like the Guidelines International Network.

Main body of the abstract

In the Egyptian Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee (EPG), we have adopted one of the CPG formal adaptation methodological frameworks named the 'Adapted ADAPTE', relevant CPG resources (e.g., the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation or AGREE II Instrument), and involved key stakeholders including clinical and healthcare topic experts and guideline methodologists in producing 32 trustworthy national evidence-based CPGs and one protocol customized to the healthcare context and services provided for Egyptian children. An EPG online website was launched to make these CPGs available and accessible as CPG summaries for pediatricians and relevant healthcare providers.

Short conclusion

The lessons learned, enablers, challenges, and solutions relevant to Egyptian National Pediatric CPGs identified in this paper could be used to address and enrich the debate on pediatric high-quality CPGs, especially for countries of similar contexts and systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42269-023-01059-0.