Search

Background and Objective: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT., Methods: Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval., Results: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others., Conclusion: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors are members or contributors to the GRADE working group. Zachary Munn is supported by an NHMRC investigator grant APP 1195676. Alexander G. Mathioudakis was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Manchester BRC, NIHR203308) and by an NIHR Clinical Lectureship in Respiratory Medicine. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Analytical frameworks are graphical representation of the key questions answered by a systematic review and can support the development of guideline recommendations. Our objectives were to a) conduct a systematic review to identify, describe and compare all analytical frameworks published as part of a systematic and guideline development process related to colorectal cancer (CRC), and b) to use this case study to develop guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews of analytical frameworks., Methods: We developed a search strategy to identify eligible studies in Medline and Embase from 1996 until December 2020. We also manually searched guideline databases and websites to identify all guidelines and systematic reviews in CRC that used an analytical framework. We assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. The systematic review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration CRD42020172117., Results: We screened 34,505 records and identified 1,166 guidelines and 3,127 systematic reviews on CRC of which five met our inclusion criteria. These five publications included four analytical frameworks in colorectal cancer (one update). We also describe our methodological approach to systematic reviews for analytical frameworks and underlying concepts for developing analytical framework using a bottom-up or top-down approach., Conclusion: Few guidelines and systematic reviews are utilizing analytical frameworks in the development of recommendations. Development of analytical frameworks should begin with a systematic search for existing analytical frameworks and follow a structured conceptual approach for their development to support guideline recommendations. Our methods may be helpful in achieving these objectives., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines., Study Design and Setting: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework., Results: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process., Conclusion: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Objective: This article explores the need for conceptual advances and practical guidance in the application of the GRADE approach within public health contexts., Methods: We convened an expert workshop and conducted a scoping review to identify challenges experienced by GRADE users in public health contexts. We developed this concept article through thematic analysis and an iterative process of consultation and discussion conducted with members electronically and at three GRADE Working Group meetings., Results: Five priority issues can pose challenges for public health guideline developers and systematic reviewers when applying GRADE: (1) incorporating the perspectives of diverse stakeholders; (2) selecting and prioritizing health and "nonhealth" outcomes; (3) interpreting outcomes and identifying a threshold for decision-making; (4) assessing certainty of evidence from diverse sources, including nonrandomized studies; and (5) addressing implications for decision makers, including concerns about conditional recommendations. We illustrate these challenges with examples from public health guidelines and systematic reviews, identifying gaps where conceptual advances may facilitate the consistent application or further development of the methodology and provide solutions., Conclusion: The GRADE Public Health Group will respond to these challenges with solutions that are coherent with existing guidance and can be consistently implemented across public health decision-making contexts., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Guideline development groups or other health care decision makers frequently encounter situations that require a simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions. This sometimes becomes apparent either when they identify questions of interest, before they formulate recommendations, or it may surface only when recommendations have already been formulated based on pairwise comparisons., Methods: Using examples from the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and a professional society, we developed a flexible approach to developing recommendations when a multiple-intervention comparison (MC) is needed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks. We iteratively refined this approach through user testing and then included a module in GRADE's official software GRADEpro to test the approach in two real and one theoretical guideline recommendations., Results: We found the approach feasible and that all EtD criteria should be considered in an MC approach. We judged that guideline development groups and other decision makers will benefit from the availability of a network meta-analyses (NMA) of intervention effects to support decisions; however, NMA supports only one of many criteria, that is, the balance of health benefits and harms, and is therefore helpful, but not essential to the approach we propose. When similar but not identical comparators are used to address MC, challenges may arise with intransitivity and the relative rankings of interventions., Conclusion: We successfully applied the MC approach and software module in generating recommendations across different scenarios and identified challenges. The MC approach allows guideline groups and other decision makers to transparently and critically assess multiple options for a given health question. Application of the approach by others may lead to refinement and allow for better understanding of its impact in developing recommendations and making choices., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)