An instrument for evaluating the clinical applicability of guidelines

Reliability and clinical applicability of lower limp strength using an enhanced paper grip strength

The enhanced paper grip test (EGPT) quantitatively assesses lower limb strength. EGPT assesses the hallux grip force by reacting a pulling force derived from a card, being positioned underneath the participant's hallux. This study aimed to investigate the repeatability and clinical applicability of the EPGT for assessing foot muscle strength. EPGT force was measured using a dynamometer. The reliability of the measurement of EPGT force was assessed by having two examiners performing the test on the same group of healthy adults. Clinical applicability was assessed in community-dwelling adults of both genders. EPGT force was recorded for both feet using the same standardised protocol for all participants. Regarding reliability, 20 healthy adults aged 23.04±5.5 years participated in the present study. The EGPT demonstrated good to excellent test-retest (ICC1,2 0.8 to 0.86) and interrater reliability (ICC1,2 0.82 to 0.88). A convenience sample of 15 community-dwelling adults (71.6±7.8 years, 68.5% women) was recruited for clinical applicability testing. All participants performed the test with mean score 15±5.7 N. EPGT is a reliable measurement of the hallux grip force strength and can be used for clinical and research purposes.

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

OBJECTIVE

To produce a mapping and feature summary of approaches and tools available for the CPG community to develop, report, or assess four types of CPGs: (1) Standard original (or de novo) CPG, (2) Rapid original CPG, (3) Adapted/adopted CPGs, and (4) Updated CPGs.

STUDY DESIGN

The systematic literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to October 13 2020. Two websites that collect and recommend approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess CPGs were also searched: Guidelines International Network and Equator Network. We screened the search results to include methodological papers that aimed to develop specific approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess any of the aforementioned four CPG types.

RESULTS

Among 10,581 citations, 46 papers reporting 46 approaches/tools were included. Of these 46 approaches/tools, 33 were about CPG development, seven were for CPG reporting, and six for CPG assessment. Among the 33 development approaches/tools, 26 did not state usability or validity information; but nine from 13 reporting or assessment approaches/tools did.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a mapping and feature summary of the current available approaches/tools, which serves to improve users' understanding to pave the way for informed choice and application.

Appraising clinical applicability of studies: mapping and synthesis of current frameworks, and proposal of the FrACAS framework and VICORT checklist

BACKGROUND

Not all research findings are translated to clinical practice. Reasons for lack of applicability are varied, and multiple frameworks and criteria exist to appraise the general applicability of epidemiological and clinical research. In this two-part study, we identify, map, and synthesize frameworks and criteria; we develop a framework to assist clinicians to appraise applicability specifically from a clinical perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Embase to identify frameworks appraising applicability of study results. Conceptual thematic analysis was used to synthesize frameworks and criteria. We carried out a framework development process integrating contemporary debates in epidemiology, findings from the literature search and synthesis, iterative pilot-testing, and brainstorming and consensus discussions to propose a concise framework to appraise clinical applicability.

RESULTS

Of the 4622 references retrieved, we identified 26 unique frameworks featuring 21 criteria. Frameworks and criteria varied by scope and level of aggregation of the evidence appraised, target user, and specific area of applicability (internal validity, clinical applicability, external validity, and system applicability). Our proposed Framework Appraising the Clinical Applicability of Studies (FrACAS) classifies studies in three domains (research, practice informing, and practice changing) by examining six criteria sequentially: Validity, Indication-informativeness, Clinical relevance, Originality, Risk-benefit comprehensiveness, and Transposability (VICORT checklist).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing frameworks to applicability vary by scope, target user, and area of applicability. We introduce FrACAS to specifically assess applicability from a clinical perspective. Our framework can be used as a tool for the design, appraisal, and interpretation of epidemiological and clinical studies.

An instrument for evaluating the clinical applicability of guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To establish an instrument for evaluating the clinical applicability of guidelines from the guideline-users' perspective.

METHODS

We established this instrument through forming a working group, forming an initial list of items based on a qualitative systematic review, establishing initial instrument via two rounds of modified Delphi surveys, and external review the initial instrument.

RESULTS

The results of modified Delphi surveys establishing appraisal aspects, appraisal items, general information of the evaluator met the preset requirements. The instrument includes three parts: general information of the evaluator (12 items), evaluation of clinical applicability (12 items, including items on the availability, readability, acceptability, feasibility, and overall applicability of guideline), and scoring scheme.

CONCLUSIONS

The instrument for evaluating the clinical applicability of guidelines from the guideline-users' perspective provides criteria and methods for improving the clinical applicability of guidelines during development and updating.