Consistent Definitions of Clinical Practice Guidelines, Consensus Statements, Position Statements, and Practice Alerts

Revised Process for ACNS Guidelines Development

SUMMARY

The development of clinical practice guidelines is an evolving field. In response to the need for consistent, evidence-based medical practice, the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society identified the need to update the Society's guideline development process. The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society Guidelines Committee created an action plan with the goal of improving transparency and rigor for future guidelines and bringing existing guidelines to current standards. This article provides an overview of the new American Clinical Neurophysiology Society standards for the creation of clinical guidance documents, including clinical guidelines, technical standards, and consensus statements. This process is rooted in the importance of clinical guidance documents and their significance in the context of current behests for updated standards for practicing clinical neurophysiology. The need and rationale for updating the guideline development process from its prior state were described. The updated American Clinical Neurophysiology Society categories for clinical guidance and recommendations were defined and compared. Finally, the new process is summarized, focusing on methodologies, authorship, and conflicts of interest.

Analysis of Opioid Prescribing Trends Following Thyroidectomy and Parathyroidectomy Before and After the 2021 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Opioid Prescribing Clinical Practice Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the trends in opioid and nonopioid prescribing for thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy before and after the publication of guidelines by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery in April 2021.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Eighty-three health care organizations in the United States that contribute to the TriNetX database.

METHODS

Deidentified patient data were retrieved from the TriNetX. Patients who were prescribed either opioids or nonopioid analgesic within 1 to 5 days following thyroid surgery and parathyroidectomy were included. Evaluation of the prescription trends was performed by interrupted time series analysis in Statistical Analysis System 9.4 with significance set at P < .05 to assess trends before and after the new opioid prescription guidelines.

RESULTS

For thyroid surgery, there was an immediate effect of the guideline change indicated by a 3.3% decrease in the opioid prescription trend (P = .03) and a significant increase in nonopioid use of overtime by 0.13% every 3 months (P < .0001). The opioid prescription trend following parathyroidectomy significantly decreased over time by 0.28% every 3 months (P < .0001), while the nonopioid prescription trend increased by 0.14% (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

There was an associated immediate reduction in the opioid prescribing trend for thyroidectomy, but the change was not sustained overtime. There was an associated decrease in the opioid prescribing trend for parathyroidectomy, but not immediately after the initial publication of the prescription guidelines.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Use of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review of Published Position Statements and Recommendations from Health Organisations and Societies

BACKGROUND

Hesitation about using biosimilars still exists among healthcare professionals (HCPs), despite extensive experience with their use. Globally, several health organisations and societies from various specialties have issued biosimilar position statements to guide the use of biosimilars in their specialties. However, it is uncertain how similar or different their positions or recommendations are or whether these positions have evolved with the increased experience and availability of new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance.

RESULTS

The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Across specialties, the variability among the position statements is seen for extrapolation of indications for biosimilars and interchangeability (including switching). This requires a revision, considering the latest evidence and growing experience with the use of biosimilars in extrapolated indications and with switching.

A systematic review and critical appraisal of menopause guidelines

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

To identify and appraise current national and international clinical menopause guidance documents, and to extract and compare the recommendations of the most robust examples.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Practice guidance documents for menopause published from 2015 until 20 July 2023. Quality was assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

RESULTS

Twenty-six guidance papers were identified. Of these, five clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and one non-hormonal therapy position statement met AGREE II criteria of being at least of moderate quality. The five CPGs listed symptoms associated with the perimenopause and menopause to be vasomotor symptoms (VMS), disturbed sleep, musculoskeletal pain, decreased sexual function or desire, and mood disturbance (low mood, mood changes or depressive symptoms). Acknowledged potential long-term menopause consequences were urogenital atrophy, and increased risks of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. VMS and menopause-associated mood disturbance were the only consistent indications for systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Some CPGs supported MHT to prevent or treat osteoporosis, but specific guidance was lacking. None recommended MHT for cognitive symptoms or prevention of other chronic disease. Perimenopause-specific recommendations were scant. A neurokinin 3B antagonist, selective serotonin/norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitors and gabapentin were recommended non-hormonal medications for VMS, and cognitive behavioural therapy and hypnosis were consistently considered as being of potential benefit.

DISCUSSION

The highest quality CPGs consistently recommended MHT for VMS and menopause-associated mood disturbance, whereas clinical depression or cognitive symptoms, and cardiometabolic disease and dementia prevention were not treatment indications. Further research is needed to inform clinical recommendations for symptomatic perimenopausal women.

Development and Publication of Clinical Practice Parameters, Reviews, and Meta-analyses: A Report From the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Presidential Task Force

The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) is committed to improving the quality, safety, and value that cardiothoracic anesthesiologists bring to patient care. To fulfill this mission, the SCA supports the creation of peer-reviewed manuscripts that establish standards, produce guidelines, critically analyze the literature, interpret preexisting guidelines, and allow experts to engage in consensus opinion. The aim of this report, commissioned by the SCA President, is to summarize the distinctions among these publications and describe a novel SCA-supported framework that provides guidance to SCA members for the creation of these publications. The ultimate goal is that through a standardized and transparent process, the SCA will facilitate up-to-date education and implementation of best practices by cardiovascular and thoracic anesthesiologists to improve patient safety, quality of care, and outcomes.

Practice Advisory for Preoperative and Intraoperative Pain Management of Cardiac Surgical Patients: Part 2

Pain after cardiac surgery is of moderate to severe intensity, which increases postoperative distress and health care costs, and affects functional recovery. Opioids have been central agents in treating pain after cardiac surgery for decades. The use of multimodal analgesic strategies can promote effective postoperative pain control and help mitigate opioid exposure. This Practice Advisory is part of a series developed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Quality, Safety, and Leadership (QSL) Committee's Opioid Working Group. It is a systematic review of existing literature for various interventions related to the preoperative and intraoperative pain management of cardiac surgical patients. This Practice Advisory provides recommendations for providers caring for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This entails developing customized pain management strategies for patients, including preoperative patient evaluation, pain management, and opioid use-focused education as well as perioperative use of multimodal analgesics and regional techniques for various cardiac surgical procedures. The literature related to this field is emerging, and future studies will provide additional guidance on ways to improve clinically meaningful patient outcomes.

Preventing Osteoarthritis After an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: An Osteoarthritis Action Alliance Consensus Statement

After an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, people need secondary prevention strategies to identify osteoarthritis at its earliest stages so that interventions can be implemented to halt or slow the progression toward its long-term burden. The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance formed an interdisciplinary Secondary Prevention Task Group to develop a consensus on recommendations to provide clinicians with secondary prevention strategies that are intended to reduce the risk of osteoarthritis after a person has an ACL injury. The group achieved consensus on 15 out of 16 recommendations that address patient education, exercise and rehabilitation, psychological skills training, graded-exposure therapy, cognitive-behavioral counseling (lacked consensus), outcomes to monitor, secondary injury prevention, system-level social support, leveraging technology, and coordinated care models. We hope this statement raises awareness among clinicians and researchers on the importance of taking steps to mitigate the risk of osteoarthritis after an ACL injury.

Protecting the stars of tomorrow: do international cardiovascular preparticipation screening policies account for the paediatric athlete? A systematic review and quality appraisal

OBJECTIVE

(1) Identify and review current policies for the cardiovascular screening of athletes to assess their applicability to the paediatric population and (2) evaluate the quality of these policy documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.

DESIGN

Systematic review and quality appraisal of policy documents.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, SportDiscus and CINAHL.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

An article was included if it was a policy/position statement/guideline/consensus or recommendation paper relating to athletes and cardiovascular preparticipation screening.

RESULTS AND SUMMARY

Of the 1630 articles screened, 13 met the inclusion criteria. Relevance to paediatric athletes was found to be high in 3 (23%), moderate in 6 (46%) and low in 4 (31%), and only 2 provide tailored guidance for the athlete aged 12-18 years. A median 5 related citations per policy investigated solely paediatric athletes, with study designs most commonly being retrospective (72%). AGREEII overall quality scores ranged from 25% to 92%, with a median of 75%. The lowest scoring domains were rigour of development; (median 32%) stakeholder involvement (median 47%) and Applicability (median 52%).

CONCLUSION

Cardiac screening policies for athletes predominantly focus on adults, with few providing specific recommendations for paediatric athletes. The overall quality of the policies was moderate, with more recent documents scoring higher. Future research is needed in paediatric athletes to inform and develop cardiac screening guidelines, to improve the cardiac care of youth athletes.

[Malnutrition management of hospitalized patients with diabetes/hyperglycemia and concurrent pathologies]

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, generating an increasing clinical and economic burden due to its micro- and macrovascular complications. Frequently, people with diabetes are hospitalized for various pathologies. These patients generally have higher risk of complications, prolonged hospitalizations and mortality. An additional factor that worsens the prognosis in these patients is the concurrence of malnutrition, especially in elderly people. All this makes the management of these patients challenging and requires a specific nutritional approach, whose purpose is to cover the nutritional requirements while always maintaining glycemic control. The purpose of this work is to provide, based on the evidence available in the literature and clinical experience, consensus recommendations by eighteen experts in Endocrinology and Nutrition on the nutritional approach of hospitalized patients with diabetes/ hyperglycemia and compare the optimal management, based on these recommendations with bedside usual care according to a panel of Spanish doctors surveyed about their daily clinical practice. This first article of this extraordinary issue of the journal Nutrición Hospitalaria describes the methodology of the study and the results obtained regarding common issues for all pathologies.

Recommendations on Off-Label Drug Use in Pediatric Guidelines

Objective: To systematically analyze the supporting evidence, drug information, and the type of off-label drug use in recommendations on off-label drug use in pediatric guidelines. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed by systematic search through MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase databases to identify literature published from 1 January 2018, to 31 December 2020. Only pediatric clinical practice guidelines that included recommendations on off-label use of drugs were included. We present descriptive information on the sources of the included guidelines, country, publication year, evidence grading system used, details on the types of off-label drug use, and the types of studies used as references to support the recommendations. Results: A total of 66 pediatric guidelines with 605 recommendations were included. Eighty-seven (14.4%) recommendations did not cite any references; and the remaining 518 recommendations were supported by 2,240 references (mean 4.3 references/recommendation). The most common types of studies cited were pediatric RCTs (n = 314, 14.0%), pediatric case series studies (n = 260, 11.6%), and reviews (n = 255, 11.4%). Twenty-one percent (n = 470) of the references were studies on adults. One hundred and forty (23.1%) recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system, of which 37 (26.4%) were graded as strong but supported with only C or D level of evidence. The most commonly reported type of information in the recommendations was indication (n = 499, 82.5%). The most commonly addressed type of off-label drug use in the 523 positive recommendations was unapproved population (n = 255, 48.8%). Sixty-nine (11.4%) recommendations explicitly reported the drug use as off-label. Conclusion: Children may be exposed to medical risks due to gaps in reporting and evidence of off-label drug use recommendations in pediatric guidelines.

Achieving Greater Health Equity: An Opportunity for Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology and anesthesiologists have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility to eliminate health disparities and to achieve health equity. We thus examine health disparity and health equity through the lens of anesthesiology and the perspective of anesthesiologists. In this paper, we define health disparity and health care disparities and provide tangible, representative examples of the latter in the practice of anesthesiology. We define health equity, primarily as the desired antithesis of health disparity. Finally, we propose a framework for anesthesiologists, working toward mitigating health disparity and health care disparities, advancing health equity, and documenting improvements in health care access and health outcomes. This multilevel and interdependent framework includes the perspectives of the patient, clinician, group or department, health care system, and professional societies, including medical journals. We specifically focus on the interrelated roles of social identity and social determinants of health in health outcomes. We explore the foundational role that clinical informatics and valid data collection on race and ethnicity have in achieving health equity. Our ability to ensure patient safety by considering these additional patient-specific factors that affect clinical outcomes throughout the perioperative period could substantially reduce health disparities. Finally, we explore the role of medical journals and their editorial boards in ameliorating health disparities and advancing health equity.

Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the management of COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument.

METHODS

The proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- CRD42020219944.

Supporting Consensus Statements: Considerations and Recommendations for a Systematic Review Service

Increasingly, a critical eye has been placed on the methodological quality of consensus statements. As expert systematic review (SR) methodologists, librarians are often called on to support consensus statement work. Using the Weill Cornell Medicine Samuel J. Wood Library's SR Service experience as a guide, the aim of this paper is to answer three main questions regarding librarians supporting consensus statement work: (1) What is a consensus statement? (2) What is consensus statement methodology and how does this compare to practice guidelines? (3) What are important and practical points to consider when supporting this kind of request?

Levels of Evidence Supporting the North American and European Perioperative Care Guidelines for Anesthesiologists between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although there are thousands of published recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines, the extent to which these are supported by high levels of evidence is not known. This study hypothesized that most recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are supported by a low level of evidence.

METHODS

A registered (Prospero CRD42020202932) systematic review was conducted of anesthesia evidence-based recommendations from the major North American and European anesthesiology societies between January 2010 and September 2020 in PubMed and EMBASE. The level of evidence A, B, or C and the strength of recommendation (strong or weak) for each recommendation was mapped using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification system or the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The outcome of interest was the proportion of recommendations supported by levels of evidence A, B, and C. Changes in the level of evidence over time were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II.

RESULTS

In total, 60 guidelines comprising 2,280 recommendations were reviewed. Level of evidence A supported 16% (363 of 2,280) of total recommendations and 19% (288 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Level of evidence C supported 51% (1,160 of 2,280) of all recommendations and 50% (756 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Of all the guidelines, 73% (44 of 60) had a low risk of bias. The proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.18 to 4.74; P = 0.933) or level of evidence B versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.72; P = 0.243) did not increase in guidelines that were revised. Year of publication was also not associated with increases in the proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A (relative risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23; P = 0.340) or level of evidence B (relative risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15; P = 0.283) compared to level of evidence C.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines are based on a low level of evidence, and this did not change over time. These findings highlight the need for additional efforts to increase the quality of evidence used to guide decision-making in anesthesiology.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on the management of female chronic pelvic pain (CPP) using the AGREE II instrument

Introduction and hypothesis

Variations in guidelines may result in differences in treatments and potentially poorer health-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate the quality of national and international guidelines and create an inventory of CPG recommendations on CPP.

Methods

We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from inception till August 2020 as well as websites of professional organizations and societies. We selected national and international CPGs reporting on the diagnosis and management of female CPP. We included six CPGs. Five researchers independently assessed the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE II tool and extracted recommendations.

Results

Two hundred thirty-two recommendations were recorded and grouped into six categories: diagnosis, medical treatment, surgical management, behavioural interventions, complementary/alternative therapies and education/research. Thirty-nine (17.11%) recommendations were comparable including: a comprehensive pain history, a multi-disciplinary approach, attributing muscular dysfunction as a cause of CPP and an assessment of quality of life. Two guidelines acknowledged sexual dysfunction associated with CPP and recommended treatment with pelvic floor exercises and behavioural interventions. All guidelines recommended surgical management; however, there was no consensus regarding adhesiolysis, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy during hysterectomy, neurectomy and laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation. Half of recommendations (106, 46.49%) were unreferenced or made in absence of good-quality evidence or supported by expert opinion. Based on the AGREE II assessment, two guidelines were graded as high quality and recommended without modifications (EAU and RCOG). Guidelines performed poorly in the “Applicability”, “Editorial Independence” and “Stakeholder Involvement” domains.

Conclusion

Majority of guidelines were of moderate quality with significant variation in recommendations and quality of guideline development.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00192-021-04848-1.

Development, Reporting, and Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Clinical practice parameters have been published with greater frequency by professional societies and groups of experts. These publications run the gamut of practice standards, practice guidelines, consensus statements or practice advisories, position statements, and practice alerts. The definitions of these terms have been clarified in an accompanying article. In this article, we present the criteria for high-quality clinical practice parameters and outline a process for developing them, specifically the Delphi method, which is increasingly being used to build consensus among content experts and stakeholders. Several tools for grading the level of evidence and strength of recommendation are offered and compared. The speciousness of categorizing guidelines as evidence-based or consensus-based will be explained. We examine the recommended checklist for reporting and appraise the tools for evaluating a practice guideline. This article is geared toward developers and reviewers of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements.