scholarly journals Levels of evidence backing the AAOS clinical practice guidelines

2021 ◽  
pp. 221049172199253
Author(s):  
Arjun K Reddy ◽  
Jared Scott ◽  
Jake X Checketts ◽  
Keith Fishbeck ◽  
Marshall Boose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Postoperative Treatment ◽  
Anatomical Site ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Anatomic Site ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
Levels Of Evidence

Purpose: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons produces clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of orthopedic injuries. We examined the strength of the evidence underlying these recommendations in order to answer the following questions: (1) Have AAOS work groups improved guideline creation practices to locate evidence to generate strong recommendations? (2) Is there variability in the available evidence based on anatomic site or stage of care? (3) Has the level of evidence supporting improved over time? Methods: Twenty-two current guidelines of the Academy were examined which yielded 408 individual recommendations. These recommendations were assigned one of five strength of evidence ratings (strong, moderate, limited, inconclusive, consensus) by the guideline panel, based on the availability and quality of the supporting evidence. From these guidelines, we extracted all of the recommendations and their corresponding evidence ratings. We then classified the recommendations by stage of care, year, and anatomical site. Results: The distribution of the levels of evidence was as follows: 77 (18.9%) were based on consensus; 53 (13.0%) were inconclusive; 93 (22.8%) were based on limited evidence; 112 (27.5%) were based on moderate evidence; and 73 were based on (17.9%) strong evidence. Strong strength of evidence was found in 45.2% of the recommendations for preventive/screening/diagnostic care, 41.1% of nonsurgical treatment, 45.1% of surgical treatment, 51.1% of rehabilitation/postoperative treatment, and 45.5% of the recommendations that had mixed stages of care. Inconclusive strength of evidence was found to be prevalent from 2009–2013, but was eliminated starting in 2014. Conclusions: Only 73 (17.9%) recommendations generated by the Academy in its 22 clinical practice guidelines are based on a “strong” strength of evidence. More robust research is needed in orthopedics to bolster confidence in the recommendations in future guideline updates.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres Laserna ◽  
Daniel A. Rubinger ◽  
Julian E. Barahona-Correa ◽  
Noah Wright ◽  
Mark R. Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Relative Risk Ratio ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Levels Of Evidence ◽  
Versus Level

Background Although there are thousands of published recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines, the extent to which these are supported by high levels of evidence is not known. This study hypothesized that most recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are supported by a low level of evidence. Methods A registered (Prospero CRD42020202932) systematic review was conducted of anesthesia evidence-based recommendations from the major North American and European anesthesiology societies between January 2010 and September 2020 in PubMed and EMBASE. The level of evidence A, B, or C and the strength of recommendation (strong or weak) for each recommendation was mapped using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification system or the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The outcome of interest was the proportion of recommendations supported by levels of evidence A, B, and C. Changes in the level of evidence over time were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. Results In total, 60 guidelines comprising 2,280 recommendations were reviewed. Level of evidence A supported 16% (363 of 2,280) of total recommendations and 19% (288 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Level of evidence C supported 51% (1,160 of 2,280) of all recommendations and 50% (756 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Of all the guidelines, 73% (44 of 60) had a low risk of bias. The proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.18 to 4.74; P = 0.933) or level of evidence B versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.72; P = 0.243) did not increase in guidelines that were revised. Year of publication was also not associated with increases in the proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A (relative risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23; P = 0.340) or level of evidence B (relative risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15; P = 0.283) compared to level of evidence C. Conclusions Half of the recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines are based on a low level of evidence, and this did not change over time. These findings highlight the need for additional efforts to increase the quality of evidence used to guide decision-making in anesthesiology. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

scholarly journals Prevention ofClostridium difficileInfection: A Systematic Survey of Clinical Practice Guidelines

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 901-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyubov Lytvyn ◽  
Dominik Mertz ◽  
Behnam Sadeghirad ◽  
Faisal Alaklobi ◽  
Anna Selva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Medical Databases ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Hospital Acquired

BACKGROUNDClostridium difficileinfection (CDI) is the most common cause of hospital-acquired infectious diarrhea.OBJECTIVETo analyze the methodological quality, content, and supporting evidence among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on CDI prevention.DESIGN AND SETTINGWe searched medical databases and gray literature for CPGs on CDI prevention published January 2004-January 2015. Three reviewers independently screened articles and rated CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, composed of 23 items, rated 1–7, within 6 domains. We reported each domain score as a percentage of its maximum possible score and standardized range. We summarized recommendations, extracted their supporting articles, and rated individually the level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence.RESULTSOf 2,578 articles screened, 5 guidelines met inclusion criteria. Median AGREE II scores and interquartile ranges were: clarity of presentation, 75.9% (75.9%–79.6%); scope and purpose, 74.1% (68.5%–85.2%); editorial independence, 63.9% (47.2%–66.7%); applicability, 43.1% (19.4%–55.6%); stakeholder involvement, 40.7% (38.9%–44.4%); and rigor of development, 18.1% (17.4%–35.4%). CPGs addressed several common strategies for CDI prevention, including antibiotic stewardship, hypochlorite solutions, probiotic prophylaxis, and bundle strategies. Recommendations were often not consistent with evidence, and most were based on low-level studies.CONCLUSIONCPGs did not adhere well to AGREE II reporting standards. Furthermore, there was limited transparency in moving from evidence to recommendations. CDI prevention CPGs need to better adhere to AGREE-II and be transparent in moving from evidence to recommendations, and recommendations need to be consistent with available evidence.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2016;37:901–908

scholarly journals Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

Liver Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-43
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Yusuke Kawamura ◽  
Kiyoshi Hasegawa ◽  
Ryosuke Tateishi ◽  
Kazuya Kariyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Consensus Statements

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC.

scholarly journals Antenatal magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection: a critical appraisal and systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 262-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pradeep M. Jayaram ◽  
Manoj K. Mohan ◽  
Ibrahim Farid ◽  
Stephen Lindow
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Fetal Neuroprotection ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

Abstract Background Magnesium sulfate is an accepted intervention for fetal neuroprotection. There are some perceived differences in the international recommendations on the use magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection in preterm labor. Content This systematic review analyses the available clinical guidelines for the use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection and compares the recommendations, and assesses the quality of guidelines. This provides the consensus, differences and explores the areas for future collaborative research. We searched databases of PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, Web of Science, LILACS; and included the national and the international clinical practice guidelines. We included seven guidelines out of 227 search results. We evaluated the methodological quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and systematically extracted guideline characters, recommendation and supporting evidence base. Summary Five guidelines were of high quality and two were of moderate quality. One guideline achieved more than an 80% score in all the domains of AGREE II tool. All guidelines recommend use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection. However, there are differences in other recommendations such as upper gestational age, dose, duration, repeating treatment and use of additional tocolytics. Outlook Future guidelines should include recommendations on all aspects of magnesium sulfate therapy for fetal neuroprotection. Future research and international collaboration should focus on areas where there are no international consensual recommendations.

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying Recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hematologic Malignancies: Are We Moving Forward?

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Harry E Fuentes ◽  
Sri Harsha Tella ◽  
Caleb J Scheckel ◽  
Thejaswi Poonacha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations ◽  
Cancer Network

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in malignant hematology by clinicians and payers in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines for malignant hematological conditions has not been recently investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common hematologic malignancies with regard to recommendations for staging, initial and salvage therapy, and surveillance. Methods: NCCN uses a system of guideline development distinct from other major professional organizations. The NCCN definitions for EC are: category I, high level of evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus; category IIA, lower level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIB, lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement; and category III, any level of evidence but with major disagreement. We compared our results with previously published results from 2011 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 16.6% from 1160 (2011) to 1353 (2020). Of the 1353 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 5%, 91%, 4%, 1% while in 2011 they were 3%, 93%, 4% and 0% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in all guidelines, except for Burkitt's Lymphoma. 6.3% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (56.4%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were Multiple Myeloma (12.4%), CLL/SLL (6.9%) and AML (5.6%). Between 2011 and 2020, the proportion of category I recommendations increased significantly only in Follicular lymphoma and CLL/SLL. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in staging or surveillance. Conclusion: Recommendations issued in the 2020 NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in hematology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in malignant hematological disorders which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Levels of evidence supporting clinical practice guidelines on invasive aspergillosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 903-913 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofía Tejada ◽  
Laura Campogiani ◽  
João Ferreira-Coimbra ◽  
Stijn Blot ◽  
Jordi Rello
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Invasive Aspergillosis ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Levels Of Evidence

scholarly journals The Italian Society of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gout

Reumatismo ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (S1) ◽  
pp. 50-79
Author(s):  
N. Ughi ◽  
I. Prevete ◽  
R. Ramonda ◽  
L. Cavagna ◽  
G. Filippou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Italian Society ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Diagnosis And Management ◽  
Increased Risk

Gout is a chronic disease with an increased risk of premature death related to comorbidities. Treatment of gout has proved suboptimal and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are expected to have a key role in achieving improvement. Since new evidence has become available, the Italian Society for Rheumatology (SIR) has been prompted to update the 2013 recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout. The framework of the Guidelines International Network Adaptation Working Group was adopted to identify, appraise (AGREE II), synthesize, and customize the existing gout CPGs to the needs of the Italian healthcare context. The task force consisting of rheumatologists from the SIR Epidemiology Unit and a committee with experience on gout identified key health questions to guide a systematic literature review. The target audience includes physicians and health professionals who manage gout in practice, and the target population includes adult patients suspected or diagnosed as having gout. These recommendations were finally rated by an external multi-disciplinary commission. From a systematic search in databases (Medline, Embase) and grey literature, 8 CPGs were selected and appraised by two independent raters. Combining evidence and statements from these CPGs and clinical expertise, 14 recommendations were developed and graded according to the level of evidence. The statements and potential impact on clinical practice were discussed and assessed. These revised recommendations are intended to provide guidance for the diagnosis and the treatment of gout and to disseminate the best evidence-based healthcare for this disease.

scholarly journals Systematic Review: Recommendations for Rehabilitation in ASD and ID from Clinical Practice Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Wickstrom ◽  
Kristin Dell'Armo ◽  
Emma Salzman ◽  
Jessica L. Hooker ◽  
Abigail Delehanty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Challenging Behavior ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
World Health ◽  
Evaluation Instrument ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Core Symptoms

Objective: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) were selected for inclusion in the development of a Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation for the World Health Organization (WHO). Here, we describe results of a search of guidelines for these conditions. Methods: A literature search for clinical practice guidelines was performed for ASD and ID. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument and other inclusion and exclusion criteria, guidelines were identified for abstraction of recommendations, which were collated into categories based on diagnosis, patient age, type and target of service, valence, and level of evidence. Results: Six guidelines remained after screening. Four ASD guidelines focused on diagnosis, management and support, and two ID guidelines covered the prevention, assessment, and management of challenging behavior and mental health problems, with 386 and 138 recommendations resulting for each group, respectively. Out of 524 total recommendations, 212 ASD and 58 ID recommendations focused on intervention. The primary type of intervention pertained to pharmacology for each group (27% ASD, 29% ID), followed by psychosocial (21%) and biomedical (23%) for ASD and behavioral (14%) and psychological (14%) for ID. Regarding target of intervention, recommendations primarily focused on coexisting conditions for each group (56% ASD, 93% ID) and core symptoms for ASD (26%), whereas adaptive functioning received little attention (11% ASD, 7% ID). Conclusions: Although these six guidelines provided many recommendations for comorbid and specific problems in ASD and ID, very few recommendations targeted core symptoms, and many were based on expert opinion. A vital next step includes identifying relevant interventions from the guidelines or that are missing to be included in the WHO Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation.

P1659Evolution of level of evidence c recommendations in European Society of Cardiology clinical practice guidelines on heart failure

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Trindade ◽  
D Faria ◽  
J Serodio ◽  
F Batista ◽  
M Beringuilho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
European Society ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
European Society Of Cardiology ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background Over the past two decades, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) on Heart Failure has increasingly become a familiar part of Cardiology practice and are used worldwide. By creating objective standards, CPG provides a mechanism to assess decision-making and straightforward references for clinicians. Level of Evidence C recommendations are based on expert consensus and/or small retrospective studies and registries with limited and non-representative populations evaluated. The resulting directives need to be proven with better quality data to assess its true benefits. Purpose The purpose of our study was to describe and evaluate the evolution of Level of Evidence C recommendations of ESC CPG on Heart Failure and to provide a quality assessment of its benefits in the following years. Methods In this retrospective observational Case-Control study, we identified and collected all Level of Evidence C recommendations in five consecutive published documents of ESC CPG in the years 2001, 2005, 2008, 2012 and 2016. Each identified recommendation was classified between two major groups: Diagnostic and Complementary Exams (group 1) and Therapeutics and Interventions (group 2) and was followed up in the following documents. Primary outcomes were classified as: (1) Upgrade to Level of Evidence A or B [Upgrade], (2) Elimination or disproven benefit/harm [Downgrade] and (3) Maintenance or minor reformulation with unchanged benefit/harm [Maintenance]. We applied a Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis to estimate the probability of Upgrade or Downgrade in each group. Results A total of 239 different Level of Evidence C recommendations were submitted to the final analysis, 22.6% (n=54) in group 1 and 77.4% (n=185) in group 2. On follow-up, 35.2% (n=76) of recommendations were upgraded, 29.6% (n=64) were downgraded and 35.2% (n=76) were maintained. Regarding outcomes, the downgrade of recommendations occurred predominantly in group 2 (94.4%). Considering all the eliminated recommendations, 60.9% took place on the next following published ESC CPG document. Likewise, 60.5% of upgraded recommendations also occurred on the next following published ESC CPG document. The probability of upgrade or downgrade in the next following document was 52.8%, predominantly in the Therapeutics and Interventions group (37.5% vs 57.9%, p=0.012). Figure 1 Conclusions Level of Evidence C recommendations constitutes an important asset of ESC CPG on Heart Failure as they are usually updated on new treatment options and are developed by experts in the specific topic. However, the probability of elimination due to disproven benefit or potential harm was high (29.6%), particularly regarding therapeutics and interventions (94%). Since a significant fraction of Level of Evidence C recommendations remains unchanged on the following document (35%), the need for high-quality data, specifically regarding therapeutic interventions, is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document