Development of Systematic Reviews to Inform WHO's Recommendations for Elimination and Prevention of Re-Establishment of Malaria: Methodology

The basis for an evidence-based recommendation is a well-conducted systematic review that synthesizes the primary literature relevant to the policy or program question of interest. In 2020, the WHO commissioned 10 systematic reviews of potential interventions in elimination or post-elimination settings to summarize their impact on malaria transmission. This paper describes the general methods used to conduct this series of systematic reviews and notes where individual reviews diverged from the common methodology. The paper also presents lessons learned from conducting the systematic reviews to make similar future efforts more efficient, standardized, and streamlined.

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)

BACKGROUND

Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias.

CONCLUSION

ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.

GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists

OBJECTIVES

Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework.

RESULTS

We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods.

CONCLUSION

This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

User-experience testing of an evidence-to-decision framework for selecting essential medicines

Essential medicine lists (EMLs) are important medicine prioritization tools used by the World Health Organization (WHO) EML and over 130 countries. The criteria used by WHO's Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines has parallels to the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. In this study, we explored the EtD frameworks and a visual abstract as adjunctive tools to strengthen the integrate evidence and improve the transparency of decisions of EML applications. We conducted user-experience testing interviews of key EML stakeholders using Morville's honeycomb model. Interviews explored multifaceted dimensions (e.g., usability) on two EML applications for the 2021 WHO EML-long-acting insulin analogues for diabetes and immune checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer. Using a pre-determined coding framework and thematic analysis we iteratively improved both the EtD framework and the visual abstract. We coded the transcripts of 17 interviews with 13 respondents in 103 locations of the interview texts across all dimensions of the user-experience honeycomb. Respondents felt the EtD framework and visual abstract presented complementary useful and findable adjuncts to the traditional EML application. They felt this would increase transparency and efficiency in evidence assessed by EML committees. As EtD frameworks are also used in health practice guidelines, including those by the WHO, respondents articulated that the adoption of the EtD by EML applications represents a tangible mechanism to align EMLs and guidelines, decrease duplication of work and improve coordination. Improvements were made to clarify instructions for the EtD and visual abstract, and to refine the design and content included. 'Availability' was added as an additional criterion for EML applications to highlight this criterion in alignment with WHO EML criteria. EtD frameworks and visual abstracts present additional important tools to communicate evidence and support decision-criteria in EML applications, which have global health impact. Access to essential medicines is important for achieving universal health coverage, and the development of essential medicine lists should be as evidence-based and trustworthy as possible.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale.

RESULTS

Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings.

CONCLUSION

Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

GRADE guidance 37: rating imprecision in a body of evidence on test accuracy

OBJECTIVES

To provide guidance on rating imprecision in a body of evidence assessing the accuracy of a single test. This guide will clarify when Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down the certainty of evidence by one or more levels for imprecision in test accuracy.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A project group within the GRADE working group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE working group meetings to produce this guidance.

RESULTS

Before rating the certainty of evidence, GRADE users should define the target of their certainty rating. GRADE recommends setting judgment thresholds defining what they consider a very accurate, accurate, inaccurate, and very inaccurate test. These thresholds should be set after considering consequences of testing and effects on people-important outcomes. GRADE's primary criterion for judging imprecision in test accuracy evidence is considering confidence intervals (i.e., CI approach) of absolute test accuracy results (true and false, positive, and negative results in a cohort of people). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the predefined judgment threshold(s), one should consider rating down certainty of evidence by one or more levels, depending on the number of thresholds crossed. When the CI does not cross judgment threshold(s), GRADE suggests considering the sample size for an adequately powered test accuracy review (optimal or review information size [optimal information size (OIS)/review information size (RIS)]) in rating imprecision. If the combined sample size of the included studies in the review is smaller than the required OIS/RIS, one should consider rating down by one or more levels for imprecision.

CONCLUSION

This paper extends previous GRADE guidance for rating imprecision in single test accuracy systematic reviews and guidelines, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should consider rating down one or more levels for imprecision.

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.

METHODS

A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.

RESULTS

Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.

CONCLUSION

Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.

GRADE GUIDANCE 38: Updated guidance for rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient

INTRODUCTION

This updated guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation addresses rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient (DRG) observed in synthesis of intervention and exposure studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This guidance was developed using iterative discussions and consensus in multiple meetings and was presented to attendees of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group meeting for feedback in November 2022 and for final approval in May 2023.

RESULTS

The guidance consists of two steps. The first is to determine whether the DRG is credible. We describe five items for assessing credibility: a) is DRG identified using a proper analytical approach; b) is confounding the cause of the DRG; c) is there serious concern about ecological bias; d) is the DRG consistent across studies; and e) is there indirect evidence supporting the DRG. The first two of these items are the most critical. If the DRG was judged to be credible, then the second step is to apply the DRG domain and consider rating up, but only by one level due to the concern about residual confounding.

CONCLUSION

Systematic review authors should only rate up certainty in evidence when a DRG is deemed credible.

Antibiotic prescribing guideline recommendations in COVID-19: a systematic survey

Background

COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting public health crises. Antimicrobial overuse in patients with COVID-19 threatens to worsen AMR. Guidelines are fundamental in encouraging antimicrobial stewardship. We sought to assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing guidelines and recommendations in the context of COVID-19, and whether they incorporate principles of antimicrobial stewardship.

Methods

We performed a systematic survey which included a search using the concepts "antibiotic/antimicrobial" up to November 15, 2022 of the eCOVID-19 living map of recommendations (RecMap) which aggregates guidelines across a range of international sources and all languages. Guidelines providing explicit recommendations regarding antibacterial use in COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Guideline and recommendation quality were assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments, respectively. We extracted guideline characteristics including panel representation and the presence or absence of explicit statements related to antimicrobial stewardship (i.e., judicious antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance or adverse effects as a consequence of antibiotic use). We used logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between guideline characteristics including quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. Protocol registration (OSF): https://osf.io/4pgtc.

Findings

Twenty-eight guidelines with 63 antibiotic prescribing recommendations were included. Recommendations focused on antibiotic initiation (n = 52, 83%) and less commonly antibiotic selection (n = 13, 21%), and duration of therapy (n = 15, 24%). Guideline and recommendation quality varied widely. Twenty (71%) guidelines incorporated at least one concept relating to antimicrobial stewardship. Including infectious diseases expertise on the guideline panel (OR 9.44, 97.5% CI: 1.09-81.59) and AGREE-REX score (OR 3.26, 97.5% CI: 1.14-9.31 per 10% increase in overall score) were associated with a higher odds of guidelines addressing antimicrobial stewardship.

Interpretation

There is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing guidelines in terms of both quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. These findings can help guideline developers better address antibiotic stewardship in future recommendations beyond COVID-19.

Funding

This project was funded by Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE centres.

Methodology for the adolopment of recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) tailored to the context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Adaptation of guidelines accounts for contextual factors and becomes more efficient than de novo guideline development when relevant, good quality, and up-to-date guidelines are available. The objective of this study is to describe the methodology used for the adolopment of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for the treatment of RA in the KSA.

METHODS

We followed the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology. The adolopment KSA panel included relevant stakeholders and leading contributors to the original guidelines. We developed a list of five adaptation-relevant prioritization criteria that the panelists applied to the original recommendations. We updated the original evidence profiles with newly published studies identified by the panelists. We constructed Evidence to Decision (EtD) tables including contextual information from the KSA setting. We used the PanelVoice function of GRADEPro Guideline Development Tool (GDT) to obtain the panel's judgments on the EtD criteria ahead of the panel meeting. Following the meeting, we used the PANELVIEW instrument to obtain the panel's evaluation of the process.

RESULTS

The KSA panel prioritized five recommendations, for which one evidence profile required updating. Out of five adoloped recommendations, two were modified in terms of direction, and one was modified in terms of certainty of the evidence. Criteria driving the modifications in direction were valuation of outcomes, balance of effects, cost, and acceptability. The mean score on the 7-point scale items of the PANELVIEW instrument had an average of 6.47 (SD = 0.18) across all items.

CONCLUSION

The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology proved to be efficient. The panel assessed the process and outcome positively. Engagement of stakeholders proved to be important for the success of this project.

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

Health Research Collaborations by Academic Entities: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To review the literature on health research collaborations by academic entities and to identify the main phases, components, and concepts of these research collaborations.

METHOD

The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature, searching 4 databases in March 2022 for studies on health research collaboration between an academic entity (individual, group, or institution) and any other entity included. They excluded non-health-related studies and studies in which collaboration was not for the purpose of research. From included studies, reviewers abstracted data about the 4 main phases of research collaborations (initiation, conduct, monitoring, and evaluation) and synthesized their corresponding components and concepts using thematic analysis method.

RESULTS

A total of 59 studies met inclusion criteria. These studies described building research collaborations between an academic entity and other academic entities (n = 29; 49%), communities (n = 28; 47%), industry (n = 7; 12%), and/or governmental entities (n = 4; 7%). Of the 59 studies, 22 addressed 2 phases of collaboration, 20 addressed 3 phases, and 17 addressed all 4 phases. All included studies described at least 1 of the components relevant to the initiation phase and at least 1 relevant to the conduct phase. Team structure was the most common component discussed in relation to the initiation phase (n = 48; 81%), and team dynamics was the most common component discussed in relation to the conduct phase (n = 55; 93%). At least 1 of the components relevant to the monitoring phase was reported in 36 studies, and at least 1 component relevant to the evaluation phase was reported in 28 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides important information for groups aiming to engage in collaborative research. The synthesized list of collaboration phases and their components can serve as a road map for collaborators at different steps of their research.

The lived experiences of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

Background

The objective of this study was to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the lived experiences of patients with cancer in Lebanon.

Methods

We adopted a descriptive phenomenological approach. We included adults who had been diagnosed with cancer before the pandemic and undergoing treatment at the American University of Beirut Medical Centre. We conducted virtual, semi-structured in-depth interviews with either video or audio recordings. Two team members coded the transcripts independently and identified common themes and patterns.

Results

We recruited 11 participants for the study. The analysis identified the following six themes: perceived seriousness of COVID-19, fear of COVID-19 versus fear of cancer, coping mechanisms, treatment availability and accessibility, compliance with public health and social measures and precautionary measures in the healthcare system. The coping mechanisms included staying positive, seeking normalcy, using family support, religiosity and fatalism.

Conclusion

Faced with many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with cancer resorted to a range of coping strategies.

Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (OVID) (2005-March 2022), Embase (2005-March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005-August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking.

DESIGN

Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study.

RESULTS

Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7-100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

CONCLUSIONS

While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl8jj4rg2w/v1.

Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Misinformation poses a serious challenge to clinical and policy decision-making in the health field. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified interest in misinformation and related terms and witnessed a proliferation of definitions.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the definitions of misinformation and related terms used in health-related literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews by searching Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Epistemonikos databases for articles published within the last 5 years up till March 2023. Eligible studies were systematic reviews that stated misinformation or related terms as part of their objectives, conducted a systematic search of at least one database, and reported at least 1 definition for misinformation or related terms. We extracted definitions for the terms misinformation, disinformation, fake news, infodemic, and malinformation. Within each definition, we identified concepts and mapped them across misinformation-related terms.

RESULTS

We included 41 eligible systematic reviews, out of which 32 (78%) reviews addressed the topic of public health emergencies (including the COVID-19 pandemic) and contained 75 definitions for misinformation and related terms. The definitions consisted of 20 for misinformation, 19 for disinformation, 10 for fake news, 24 for infodemic, and 2 for malinformation. "False/inaccurate/incorrect" was mentioned in 15 of 20 definitions of misinformation, 13 of 19 definitions of disinformation, 5 of 10 definitions of fake news, 6 of 24 definitions of infodemic, and 0 of 2 definitions of malinformation. Infodemic had 19 of 24 definitions addressing "information overload" and malinformation had 2 of 2 definitions with "accurate" and 1 definition "used in the wrong context." Out of all the definitions, 56 (75%) were referenced from other sources.

CONCLUSIONS

While the definitions of misinformation and related terms in the health field had inconstancies and variability, they were largely consistent. Inconstancies related to the intentionality in misinformation definitions (7 definitions mention "unintentional," while 5 definitions have "intentional"). They also related to the content of infodemic (9 definitions mention "valid and invalid info," while 6 definitions have "false/inaccurate/incorrect"). The inclusion of concepts such as "intentional" may be difficult to operationalize as it is difficult to ascertain one's intentions. This scoping review has the strength of using a systematic method for retrieving articles but does not cover all definitions in the extant literature outside the field of health. This scoping review of the health literature identified several definitions for misinformation and related terms, which showed variability and included concepts that are difficult to operationalize. Health practitioners need to exert caution before labeling a piece of information as misinformation or any other related term and only do so after ascertaining accurateness and sometimes intentionality. Additional efforts are needed to allow future consensus around clear and operational definitions.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3.

CONSENSUS

The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4.

DISSEMINATION

We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations.

CONCLUSION

Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Exploring the concordance of recommendations across guidelines on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19: A proposed methodological approach based on a case study

OBJECTIVE

To describe a methodological approach to explore the concordance of recommendations across guidelines and its application to the case of the WHO recommendations on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We followed a methodological approach applied to a case study that included: defining the 'reference guideline' (i.e., the WHO guidance) and the 'reference recommendations'; searching for 'related guidelines' and identifying 'related recommendations'; constructing the PICO for the recommendations; assessing the matching of the PICO of each related recommendation to the PICO corresponding reference recommendation; and assessing the concordance between the PICO-matching recommendations.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 89 related recommendations from 22 related guidelines. Out of the 89 related recommendations, 43 partly matched and 1 entirely matched one of the reference recommendations, and out of these, 8 were concordant with one of the reference recommendations. When considering the seven reference recommendations, they had a median of 12 related recommendations (range 3-17), a median of 7 PICO-matching recommendations (range 0-13), and a median of 1 concordant recommendation (range 0-4).

CONCLUSION

Following a detailed methodological approach, we were able to explore the concordance between our reference recommendations and related recommendations from other guidelines. A relatively low percentage of recommendations was concordant.

Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews' methods: protocol for an eDelphi study

INTRODUCTION

Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.

GRADE concept 4: rating the certainty of evidence when study interventions or comparators differ from PICO targets

OBJECTIVES

This Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) concept article offers systematic reviewers, guideline authors, and other users of evidence assistance in addressing randomized trial situations in which interventions or comparators differ from those in the target people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. To clarify what GRADE considers under indirectness of interventions and comparators, we focus on a particular example: when comparator arm participants receive some or all aspects of the intervention management strategy (treatment switching).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An interdisciplinary panel of the GRADE working group members developed this concept article through an iterative review of examples in multiple teleconferences, small group sessions, and e-mail correspondence. After presentation at a GRADE working group meeting in November 2022, attendees approved the final concept paper, which we support with examples from systematic reviews and individual trials.

RESULTS

In the presence of safeguards against risk of bias, trials provide unbiased estimates of the effect of an intervention on the people as enrolled, the interventions as implemented, the comparators as implemented, and the outcomes as measured. Within the GRADE framework, differences in the people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes elements between the review or guideline recommendation targets and the trials as implemented constitute issues of indirectness. The intervention or comparator group management strategy as implemented, when it differs from the target comparator, constitutes one potential source of indirectness: Indirectness of interventions and comparators-comparator group receipt of the intervention constitutes a specific subcategory of said indirectness. The proportion of comparator arm participants that received the intervention and the apparent magnitude of effect bear on whether one should rate down, and if one does, to what extent.

CONCLUSION

Treatment switching and other differences between review or guideline recommendation target interventions and comparators vs. interventions and comparators as implemented in otherwise relevant trials are best considered issues of indirectness.

Conflict of interest in the peer review process: A survey of peer review reports

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors address study funding and authors' conflicts of interests (COI). Also, we aimed to assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors reported and commented on their own or each other's COI.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic survey of original studies published in open access peer reviewed journals that publish their peer review reports. Using REDCap, we collected data in duplicate and independently from journals' websites and articles' peer review reports.

RESULTS

We included a sample of original studies (N = 144) and a second one of randomized clinical trials (N = 115) RCTs. In both samples, and for the majority of studies, reviewers reported absence of COI (70% and 66%), while substantive percentages of reviewers did not report on COI (28% and 30%) and only small percentages reported any COI (2% and 4%). For both samples, none of the editors whose names were publicly posted reported on COI. The percentages of peer reviewers commenting on the study funding, authors' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 2% in either one of the two samples. 25% and 7% of editors respectively in the two samples commented on study funding, while none commented on authors' COI, peer reviewers' COI, or their own COI. The percentages of authors commenting in their response letters on the study funding, peer reviewers' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 3% in either one of the two samples.

CONCLUSION

The percentages of peer reviewers and journals editors who addressed study funding and authors' COI and were extremely low. In addition, peer reviewers and journal editors rarely reported their own COI, or commented on their own or on each other's COI.

Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of evidence syntheses in informing policymaking, their production and use remain limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). There is a lack of empirical research on approaches to promote and use policy-relevant evidence syntheses to inform policymaking processes in the EMR.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to describe the development of an impact-oriented approach to link evidence synthesis to policy, and its implementation through selected case studies in Lebanon, a middle-income country in the EMR.

METHODS

This study followed a multifaceted and iterative process that included (i) a review of the literature, (ii) input from international experts in evidence synthesis and evidence-informed health policymaking, and (iii) application in a real-world setting (implementation). We describe four selected case studies of implementation. Surveys were used to assess policy briefs, deliberative dialogues, and post-dialogue activities. Additionally, Kingdon's stream theory was adopted to further explain how and why the selected policy issues rose to the decision agenda.

RESULTS

The approach incorporates three interrelated phases: (1) priority setting, (2) evidence synthesis, and (3) uptake. Policy-relevant priorities are generated through formal priority setting exercises, direct requests by policymakers and stakeholders, or a focusing event. Identified priorities are translated into focused questions that can be addressed via evidence synthesis (phase 1). Next, a scoping of the literature is conducted to identify existing evidence syntheses addressing the question of interest. Unless the team identifies relevant, up-to-date and high-quality evidence syntheses, it proceeds to conducting SRs addressing the priority questions of interest (phase 2). Next, the team prepares knowledge translation products (e.g., policy briefs) for undertaking knowledge uptake activities, followed by monitoring and evaluation (phase 3). There are two prerequisites to the application of the approach: enhancing contextual awareness and capacity strengthening. The four case studies illustrate how evidence produced from the suites of activities was used to inform health policies and practices.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe both the development and implementation of an approach to link evidence synthesis to policy in the EMR. We believe the approach will be useful for researchers, knowledge translation platforms, governments, and funders seeking to promote evidence-informed policymaking and practice.

Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

GRADE Guidance 36: Updates to GRADE's approach to addressing inconsistency

OBJECTIVES

To update previous GRADE guidance addressing inconsistency and interpreting subgroup analyses.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Using an iterative process, we consulted with members of the GRADE working group through multiple rounds of written feedback and discussions at GRADE working group meetings.

RESULTS

The guidance complements previous guidance with clarification on two areas: (1) assessing inconsistency and (2) assessing the credibility of possible effect modifiers that might explain inconsistency. Specifically, the guidance clarifies that inconsistency refers to variability in results, not variability in study characteristics; that inconsistency assessment for binary outcomes requires consideration of both relative and absolute effects; how to decide between narrower and broader questions in systematic reviews and guidelines; that, with the same evidence, ratings of inconsistency may differ depending on the target of certainty rating; and how GRADE inconsistency ratings relate to a statistical measure of inconsistency I² depending on the context in which one views results. The second part of the guidance illustrates, based on a worked example, the use of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). The guidance explains the stepwise process of moving from a subgroup analysis to assessing the credibility of effect modification and, if found credible, to subgroup-specific effect estimates and GRADE certainty ratings.

CONCLUSION

This updated guidance addresses specific conceptual and practical issues that systematic review authors frequently face when considering the degree of inconsistency in estimates of treatment effects across studies.

Ultrasound-guided arterial cannulation in the paediatric population

BACKGROUND

In arterial line cannulation in children and adolescents, traditional methods of locating the artery include palpation and Doppler auditory assistance. It is unclear whether ultrasound guidance is superior to these methods. This is an update of a review originally published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of ultrasound guidance compared with traditional techniques (palpation, Doppler auditory assistance) for assisting arterial line placement at all potential sites in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to 30 October 2022. We also searched four trials registers for ongoing trials, and we checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for other potentially eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound guidance versus other techniques (palpation or Doppler auditory assistance) to guide arterial line cannulation in children and adolescents (aged under 18 years). We planned to include quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs. For RCTs with both adult and paediatric populations, we planned to include only the paediatric population data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane meta-analytical procedures, and we applied the GRADE method to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs reporting 748 arterial cannulations in children and adolescents (under 18 years of age) undergoing different surgical procedures. Eight RCTs compared ultrasound with palpation, and one compared ultrasound with Doppler auditory assistance. Five studies reported the incidence of haematomas. Seven involved radial artery cannulation and two involved femoral artery cannulation. The people performing arterial cannulation were physicians with different levels of experience. The risk of bias varied across studies, with some studies lacking details of allocation concealment. It was not possible to blind practitioners in any case; this adds a performance bias that is inherent to the type of intervention studied in our review. Compared to traditional methods, ultrasound guidance probably causes a large increase in first-attempt success rates (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 2.46; 8 RCTs, 708 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably causes a large reduction in the risk of complications such as haematoma formation (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.47; 5 RCTs, 420 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported data about ischaemic damage. Ultrasound guidance probably improves success rates within two attempts (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.51; 2 RCTs, 134 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and overall rate of successful cannulation (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.59; 6 RCTs, 374 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, ultrasound guidance probably reduces the number of attempts to successful cannulation (mean difference (MD) -0.99 attempts, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.83; 5 RCTs, 368 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and duration of the cannulation procedure (MD -98.77 seconds, 95% CI -150.02 to -47.52, 5 RCTs, 402 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). More studies are needed to confirm whether the improvement in first-attempt success rates is more pronounced in neonates and younger children compared to older children and adolescents.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified moderate-certainty evidence that ultrasound guidance for arterial cannulation compared with palpation or Doppler auditory assistance improves first-attempt success rate, second-attempt success rate and overall success rate. We also found moderate-certainty evidence that ultrasound guidance reduces the incidence of complications, the number of attempts to successful cannulation and the duration of the cannulation procedure.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

The life and death of living systematic reviews: a methodological survey

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to describe the characteristics of living systematic reviews (LSRs) and to understand their life cycles.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a comprehensive search up to April 2021 then selected articles and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We undertook descriptive analyses and calculated delay in version update and delay since the last published version.

RESULTS

We included 76 eligible LSRs with a total of 279 eligible versions. The majority of LSRs was from the clinical field (70%), was COVID-19 related (63%), and had a funding source specified (62%). The median number of versions per LSR was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-4; range 1-19). The median and IQR for the ratio of the actual period of update to the planned period of update was 1.12 (0.81; 1.71). Out of all reviews with a 'planned period of update' and at least one update (N = 19), eight LSRs (42%) had a period since last published version greater than 3 times the planned period of update. No LSR included a 'retirement notice' in their latest published version.

CONCLUSION

While most LSR complied with the planned period of producing updates, a substantive proportion lagged since their last update.

Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges.

METHODS

Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors.

RESULTS

We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs.

CONCLUSION

We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.

Decision criteria for selecting essential medicines and their connection to guidelines: an interpretive descriptive qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines has led to at least 137 national lists. Essential medicines should be grounded in evidence-based guideline recommendations and explicit decision criteria. Essential medicines should be available, accessible, affordable, and the supporting evidence should be accompanied by a rating of the certainty one can place in it. Our objectives were to identify criteria and considerations that should be addressed in moving from a guideline recommendation regarding a medicine to the decision of whether to add, maintain, or remove a medicine from an essential medicines list. We also seek to explore opportunities to improve organizational processes to support evidence-based health decision-making more broadly.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of key informant stakeholders in the development and use of guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs). We used an interpretive descriptive analysis approach and thematic analysis of interview transcripts in NVIVO v12.

RESULTS

We interviewed 16 key informants working at national and global levels across all WHO regions. We identified five themes: three descriptive/explanatory themes 1) EMLs and guidelines, the same, but different; 2) EMLs can drive price reductions and improve affordability and access; 3) Time lag and disconnect between guidelines and EMLs; and two prescriptive themes 4) An "evidence pipeline" could improve coordination between guidelines and EMLs; 5) Facilitating the link between the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) and national EMLs could increase alignment.

CONCLUSION

We found significant overlap and opportunities for alignment between guideline and essential medicine decision processes. This finding presents opportunities for guideline and EML developers to enhance strategies for collaboration. Future research should assess and evaluate these strategies in practice to support the shared goal of guidelines and EMLs: improvements in health.

The GIN-McMaster guideline tool extension for the integration of quality improvement and quality assurance in guidelines: a description of the methods for its development

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to develop an extension of the widely used GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist and Tool for the integration of quality assurance and improvement (QAI) schemes with guideline development.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods approach incorporating evidence from a systematic review, an expert workshop and a survey of experts to iteratively create an extension of the checklist for QAI through three rounds of feedback. As a part of this process, we also refined criteria of a good guideline-based quality indicator.

RESULTS

We developed a 40-item checklist extension addressing steps for the integration of QAI into guideline development across the existing 18 topics and created one new topic specific to QAI. The steps span from 'organization, budget, planning and training', to updating of QAI and guideline implementation.

CONCLUSION

The tool supports integration of QAI schemes with guideline development initiatives and it will be used in the forthcoming integrated European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer. Future work should evaluate this extension and QAI items requiring additional support for guideline developers and links to QAI schemes.

Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Immune-Based Therapy for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 and Risk of Secondary Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Immune-based therapies are standard-of-care treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring hospitalization. However, safety concerns related to the potential risk of secondary infections may limit their use.

Methods

We searched OVID Medline, Ovid EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and PROSPERO in October 2020 and updated the search in November 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers screened abstracts and full studies and extracted data in an independent manner. We used RevMan to conduct a meta-analysis using random-effects models to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for the incidence of infection. Statistical heterogeneity was determined using the I ² statistic. We assessed risk of bias for all studies and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We conducted a meta-regression using the R package to meta-explore whether age, sex, and invasive mechanical ventilation modified risk of infection with immune-based therapies. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021229406).

Results

This was a meta-analysis of 37 RCTs including 32 621 participants (mean age, 60 years; 64% male). The use of immune-based therapy for COVID-19 conferred mild protection for the occurrence of secondary infections (711/15 721, 4.5%, vs 616/16 900, 3.6%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95; P = .008; I ² = 28%). A subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup effect by type of immune-based therapies (P = .85). A meta-regression revealed no impact of age, sex, or mechanical ventilation on the effect of immune-based therapies on risk of infection.

Conclusions

We identified moderate-certainty evidence that the use of immune-based therapies in COVID-19 requiring hospitalization does not increase the risk of secondary infections.

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.

RESULTS

253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling.

CONCLUSIONS

Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Research fellowship in a Lebanese academic medical center: What does it take to shift from an informal to a formal program?

Research fellowship programs help medical graduates acquire research skills for an academic career. While our institution employed a large number of research fellows, it did not offer them a formal training program. This study aimed to assess the views of fellows and their mentors regarding the current research fellowship program, and to seek their suggestions for a formal training program at our medical center. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using both focus group discussions and individual interviews with research fellows, and individual interviews with their mentors. We recruited all eligible participants by email. We collected data in person and analyzed it thematically. We followed the consolidated criteria for reporting of qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. A total of 17 research fellows and 17 mentors participated in the study. Participants described the current non-formal program and proposed suggestions for a formal training program. The identification of available vacant positions and the recruitment process followed an unstructured approach, through networking with mentors and previous fellows. Although there is a formal contract, there is no job description, and no definition of roles, responsibilities and rights. Some fellows get the opportunity of being involved in all aspects of research and benefit from a favorable mentor-mentee relationship. Conversely, others struggle with authorship and with the projects allocated to them, some being "non-research" related. Not all fellows end up publishing their projects. Participants provided suggestions to shift into a formal training, including measures to improve on the recruitment process of fellows, defining roles and exposure to all aspects of research. Research fellows are eager to learn, but the currently available program is unstructured. They need a formal training program that meets their expectations, one that offers equitable learning opportunities and benefits to all.

Recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Saudi Arabia: adolopment of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology guidelines

BACKGROUND

The 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guideline considers the specific context of the United States which differs from that of Saudi Arabia in many aspects that may impact recommendations. The objective of this project was to adapt a set of prioritized recommendations from the 2021 ACR guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis RA for the context of Saudi Arabia, by the Saudi Society for Rheumatology (SSR).

METHODS

The process followed the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology, and the reporting adhered to the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. Working groups included a coordination group and a 19-member panel representing different stakeholder groups. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) tables included evidence on health effects from the source guideline and contextual information from the Saudi setting.

RESULTS

The panel prioritized and adapted five recommendations from the source guideline. The process led to modifying two out of the five prioritized recommendations, all listed here. In naive patients with low disease activity, methotrexate (MTX) is conditionally recommended over sulfasalazine (SSZ) (modified direction); hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is conditionally recommended over SSZ (unmodified). Initiation of csDMARDs with short-term glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over csDMARDs alone in naive patients with moderate to high disease activity (modified direction). Switch to subcutaneous MTX is conditionally recommended over addition/switch to alternative DMARD(s) in patients taking oral MTX who are not at target (unmodified). Discontinuation of MTX is conditionally recommended over gradual discontinuation of the bDMARD or tsDMARD for patients taking MTX plus a bDMARD or tsDMARD who wish to discontinue a DMARD (unmodified).

CONCLUSION

Rheumatologists practicing in Saudi Arabia can use the adoloped recommendations generated by this project while adopting the rest of the recommendations from the 2021 ACR guidelines.

Developing Capacity in Dissemination and Implementation Research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Evaluation of a Training Workshop

As the demand for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research grows globally, there is a need for D&I capacity building in regions where D&I science is underrepresented. The Workshop on Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (WONDIRH) was aimed for participants in the Eastern Mediterranean region to (1) appreciate the complex process of bridging research and practice in a variety of real-world settings, and (2) develop research that balances rigor with relevance and employs study designs and methods appropriate for the complex processes involved in D&I. The present exploratory study investigates participants' satisfaction with the workshop, the enhancement of their self-rated confidence in D&I skills, as well as their intention to apply the learned content into practice. The workshop included four weekly 90-min virtual interactive training sessions in conjunction with open access content from the National Cancer Institute Training Institute in Implementation and Dissemination Research in Cancer (TIDIRC). We applied a one-group pre-post design for the evaluation of workshop. Participants were invited to self-rate their confidence in D&I competencies (15 items, pre and post workshop). At the end of the workshop, participants additionally were asked to rate their satisfaction (5 items, 1-5 scales), and their intention to apply the learned content into practice (4 items, 1-5 scales). Of the 77 workshop participants, 34 completed the evaluation. Confidence improved between pre- and post-workshop assessments in all 15 self-rated D&I competencies. Respondents were generally satisfied with the workshop (mean satisfaction range 3.82-4.26 across the 5 items) and endorsed intentions to apply workshop topics (mean intention range 4.03-4.35 across the 4 items). This initial workshop demonstrated the ability to attract and engage participants to enhance their confidence in D&I research competencies and skills and to build capacity in D&I research. Future efforts should consider offering targeted training for researchers at different stages and to clearly articulate learning objectives.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00067-y.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: January 2022 update on the use of therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in acutely ill patients

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines.

RESULTS

The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants.

CONCLUSION

This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: March 2022 update on the use of anticoagulation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines.

RESULTS

The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness.

Stakeholders’ views and perspectives on treatments of visceral leishmaniasis and their outcomes in HIV-coinfected patients in East Africa and South-East Asia: A mixed methods study

Background

In visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), combination therapy (liposomal amphotericin B infusion and oral miltefosine) is being considered as an alternative to liposomal amphotericin B monotherapy. We aimed to assess the views of stakeholders in relation to these treatment options.

Methodology

In a mixed methods study, we surveyed and interviewed patients, government functionaries, programme managers, health service providers, nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and World Health Organization (WHO) personnel. We used the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for data collection planning and analysis. Constructs of interest included valuation of outcomes, impact on equity, feasibility and acceptability of the treatment options, implementation considerations, monitoring and evaluation, and research priorities.

Principal findings/Conclusion

Mortality and non-serious adverse events were rated as “critical” by respectively the highest (61%) and lowest percentages (47%) of survey participants. Participants viewed clinical cure as essential for patients to regain productivity. Non-patient stakeholders emphasized the importance of “sustained” clinical cure. For most survey participants, combination therapy, compared with monotherapy, would increase health equity (40%), and be more acceptable (79%) and feasible (57%). Interviews revealed that combination therapy was more feasible and acceptable than monotherapy when associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization. The findings of the interviews provided insight into those of the survey. When choosing between alternative options, providers should consider the outcomes that matter to patients as well as the impact on equity, feasibility, and acceptability of the options.

In East Africa and South Asia, the number of patients with visceral leishmaniasis (VL) co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been increasing over the years. In addition to independently posing major health challenges, the two conditions have detrimental effects on each other. In light of new evidence on treatment regimens for this patient population, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently updated its evidence-based region-specific treatment recommendations. To inform this process, we assessed the views of stakeholders on the outcomes of interest and on medication treatment options. The mixed methods study consisted of an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Outcomes such as mortality, complications, clinical cure, relapse and serious adverse events were viewed as important because of the burden associated with their experience, their consequences, and the co-infection status of the patients. Outcomes such as non-serious adverse events were viewed as less important for reasons relating to patient tolerability and ease of treatment. As compared to monotherapy, combination therapy was found to be more equitable, acceptable, and feasible. While our findings are important to consider by clinicians treating patients with VL patients coinfected with HIV, they also inform decisions made by other stakeholders such as guideline developers and program managers.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care

BACKGROUND

Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care.

DESIGN

First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders.

SETTING

International.

PARTICIPANTS

Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication.

LIMITATION

This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented.

CONCLUSION

The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.