scholarly journals Methodology for Evidence Synthesis and Development of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain

2021 ◽  
Vol S1;24 (1;S1) ◽  
pp. S1-S26
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Techniques

BACKGROUND: The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, “clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options.” The revised definition distinguishes between the term “clinical practice guideline” and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations. RESULTS: Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques. CONCLUSION: This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies. KEY WORDS: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), interventional pain management, evidence synthesis, methodological quality assessment, conflict of interest, confluence of interest, comparative effectiveness research (CER), clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care: a systematic review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Tapia-López Elena ◽  
Virgilio Sacha ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Lucas Perelli ◽  
Hernán Cohen-Arazi ◽  
GErmán Solioz ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background : The aim of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management of difficult airway is to provide optimal responses to a potentially life-threatening clinical problem.Objective : to summarize and compare relevant recommendations and algorithms from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).Methods : We conducted a systematic review (overview) of CPGs, following Cochrane methods. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. In July 2018, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We included those EB-CPGs reporting standard methods for identification, data collection, study risk of bias assessment and recommendations’ level of evidence. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.Results: We included 11 EB-CPGs out of 2505 references identified in literature searches within the last ten years. Only three of them used the GRADE system. The domains with better performance in the AGREE-II assessment, were ‘adequate description of scoping’ and ‘objectives’ while those with worst performance were ‘‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’. As a result, only three EB-CPGs were classified as ‘Highly recommended, two as ‘Recommended’ and six as ‘Not recommended. We summarized 22 diagnostic recommendations, 22% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were considered by developers as strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (76% strong). Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years.Conclusions : The main EB-CPGs in the management of difficult airway in anesthesia presented significant heterogeneity in terms of their quality and system of grading the evidence and strength of recommendation used, and most used their own systems. We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

scholarly journals Over half of clinical practice guidelines use non-systematic methods to inform recommendations: A methods study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0250356
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Cynthia Ramasubbu ◽  
Lorri Puil ◽  
Tracy Liu ◽  
Savannah Gerrish ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Comprehensive Search

Introduction Assessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations. Methods Guidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder. Results Of the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines. Conclusions High quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

scholarly journals An Introduction to an Evidence-Based Approach to Interventional Techniques in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E1-E33
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Based Medicine

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. Clinical practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatment. In November 1989, Congress mandated the creation of the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR). AHCPR was given broad responsibility for supporting research, data development, and related activities. Associated with this mandate, the National Academy of Sciences published a document indicating that guidelines are expected to enhance the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services. Guidelines as a whole have been characterized by multiple conflicts in terminology and technique. These conflicts are notable for the confusion they create and for what they reflect about differences in values, experiences, and interest among different parties. Despite this confusion, public and private development of guidelines is growing exponentially. There are only limited means to coordinate these guidelines in order to resolve inconsistencies, fill in gaps, track applications and results, and assess the soundness of individual guidelines. Significant diversity exists in clinical practice guidelines. The inconsistency amongst guidelines arises from variations in values, tolerance for risks, preferences, expertise, and conflicts of interest. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) first created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 4 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance, dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably, and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payors. The ASIPP guidelines are based on evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is in turn based on 4 basic contingencies: the recognition of the patient’s problem and the construction of a structured clinical question; the ability to efficiently and effectively search the medical literature to retrieve the best available evidence to answer the clinical question; clinical appraisal of the evidence; and integration of the evidence with all aspects of the individual patient’s decision-making to determine the best clinical care of the patient. Evidence synthesis for guidelines includes the review of all relevant systematic reviews and individual articles, grading them for relevance, methodologic quality, consistency, and recommendations. Key words: Evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, critical appraisal, guideline development, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, evidence synthesis, clinical relevance, grading recommendations, systematic reviews

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. e0181927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Ross ◽  
Justin Rankin ◽  
Jason Beaman ◽  
Kelly Murray ◽  
Philip Sinnett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Opioid Use

scholarly journals Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for adults with fractures: identification of best evidence for rehabilitation to develop the WHO’s Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Gimigliano ◽  
◽  
Sara Liguori ◽  
Antimo Moretti ◽  
Giuseppe Toro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Distal Radius ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
World Health ◽  
The World

Abstract Background The identification of existing rehabilitation interventions and related evidence represents a crucial step along the development of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR). The methods for such identification have been developed by the WHO Rehabilitation Programme and Cochrane Rehabilitation under the guidance of the WHO’s Guideline Review Committee secretariat. The aim of this paper is to report on the results of the systematic search for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relevant to the rehabilitation of adults with fractures and to present the current state of evidence available from the identified CPGs. Methods This paper is part of the Best Evidence for Rehabilitation (be4rehab) series, developed according to the methodology presented in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR) introductory paper. It is a systematic review of existing CPGs on fractures in adult population published from 2009 to 2019. Results We identified 23 relevant CPGs after title and abstract screening. According to inclusion/exclusion criteria, we selected 13 CPGs. After checking for quality, publication time, multiprofessionality, and comprehensiveness, we finally included five CPGs dealing with rehabilitative management of fractures in adult population, two CPGs addressing treatment of distal radius fracture and three the treatment of femoral/hip fracture. Conclusion The selected CPGs on management of distal radius and femoral/hip fracture include few recommendations regarding rehabilitation, with overall low to very low quality of evidence and weak/conditional strength of recommendation. Moreover, several gaps in specific rehabilitative topics occur. Further high-quality trials are required to upgrade the quality of the available evidence. Level of evidence Level 1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document