From conventional to living guidelines - faster updates for better informed guidance? A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The goal of living guidelines is keeping recommendations in guidelines up-to-date as new evidence becomes available. This review aims at scoping the prevalence and formal characteristics of living guidelines in the field of medicine and explore differences between formats.

METHODS

A selective search of living guidelines in MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar and six relevant online repositories for guidelines (MAGICApp, AWMF, GIN, NICE, WHO-Iris, BIGG) was conducted. Authors and editors were contacted to receive previous non-living guideline versions. Living guidelines were subsequently analyzed according to pre-defined methodological criteria as described below (inter-comparison). Differences between living and their conventional (non-living) versions were assessed (intra-comparison).

RESULTS

83 living guidelines were identified and selected for further screening, out of which 26 were eligible for analysis. 61.5% were new publications (de-novo guidelines) and 38.5% updates of pre-existing guidelines. There are some concepts defining, for example, the update cycle (AWMF, maximum of 12 months) but not all living guidelines follow or refer to existing concepts. The analysis shows that living guidelines in line with the established standards for (non-living) clinical guidelines involve an evidence standard, an extensive consensus process (often in the form of a Delphi process), and the inclusion of stakeholders (patients/relatives) in the development process, despite the high frequency of updates. When comparing living and conventional guidelines with the descriptive approach changes were found in update frequency (being more frequent with living guidelines, annually at the latest) and publication format (towards more digital) and public consultation (living guidelines offered more possibilities), no substantial methodological differences were observed in the description of consensus processes, changes in number of recommendations, inclusion of patient representatives. Given the small number of comparable pairs, the results reflect a tendency in the analyzed sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition and development of living guidelines varied. Standardization (i. e. in the form of a checklist, procedure template) is needed to assess quality of the living process.