Search

This article discusses recent criticism of evidence-based medicine (EBM), which has tended to place unilateral emphasis on evidence originating from randomised trials into effectiveness. The goal of the pioneers of EBM, however, was actually the application of scientific evidence to the individual patient, including the doctor's experience ('practice-based') and the patient's preference ('preference-based') in decision making. Guidelines can support this process by systematically paying attention to patients' preferences and by presenting the advantages and disadvantages of different management options. The application of guidelines should not involve pursuit of 'standard care' but, primarily, the pursuit of shared decision making. This could lead to 'real EBM', in which medical knowledge is translated to practical choice options from different perspectives.

Many patients of all ages have multiple conditions, yet clinicians often lack explicit guidance on how to approach clinical decision-making for such people. Most recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) focus on the management of single diseases, and may be harmful or impractical for patients with multimorbidity. A major barrier to the development of guidance for people with multimorbidity stems from the fact that the evidence underlying CPGs derives from studies predominantly focused on the management of a single disease. In this paper, the investigators from the Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients Study Group present consensus-based recommendations for guideline developers to make guidelines more useful for the care of people with multimorbidity. In an iterative process informed by review of key literature and experience, we drafted a list of issues and possible approaches for addressing important coexisting conditions in each step of the guideline development process, with a focus on considering relevant interactions between the conditions, their treatments and their outcomes. The recommended approaches address consideration of coexisting conditions at all major steps in CPG development, from nominating and scoping the topic, commissioning the work group, refining key questions, ranking importance of outcomes, conducting systematic reviews, assessing quality of evidence and applicability, summarizing benefits and harms, to formulating recommendations and grading their strength. The list of issues and recommendations was reviewed and refined iteratively by stakeholders. This framework acknowledges the challenges faced by CPG developers who must make complex judgments in the absence of high-quality or direct evidence. These recommendations require validation through implementation, evaluation and refinement.

Background: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the thirteenth of a series of 14 articles that were prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases. This article focuses on current concepts and research evidence about how to disseminate and implement guidelines optimally on a national and international level to improve quality of care., Methods: In this article we address the following questions: What frameworks can aid guideline dissemination and implementation; what are the effects of different guideline dissemination and implementation strategies; and, what is the role of guideline developers in guideline dissemination and implementation? We identified existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. Our conclusions are based on evidence from published literature, experience from guideline developers, and workshop discussions., Results and Conclusions: The Knowledge to Action cycle proposed by Graham and colleagues (J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006;26:13-24) provides a useful framework for planning dissemination and implementation activities that emphasize the need for tailored approaches based on an assessment of local barriers. There are a broad range of interventions that are generally effective at improving the uptake of evidence. The best intervention depends on likely barriers, available resources, and other practical considerations. Financial interventions (such as pay for performance) appear to be as effective as other interventions that aim to change professional behavior. Guideline developers who do not have responsibility for guideline implementation in their jurisdiction should support those with responsibility for implementation by considering the "implementability" of their guidelines.

Background: Guidelines traditionally focus on the diagnosis and treatment of single diseases. As almost half of the patients with a chronic disease have more than one disease, the applicability of guidelines may be limited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent that guidelines address comorbidity and to assess the supporting evidence of recommendations related to comorbidity., Methodology/principal Findings: We conducted a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines focusing on four highly prevalent chronic conditions with a high impact on quality of life: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus type 2, and osteoarthritis. Data were abstracted from each guideline on the extent that comorbidity was addressed (general comments, specific recommendations), the type of comorbidity discussed (concordant, discordant), and the supporting evidence of the comorbidity-related recommendations (level of evidence, translation of evidence). Of the 20 guidelines, 17 (85%) addressed the issue of comorbidity and 14 (70%) provided specific recommendations on comorbidity. In general, the guidelines included few recommendations on patients with comorbidity (mean 3 recommendations per guideline, range 0 to 26). Of the 59 comorbidity-related recommendations provided, 46 (78%) addressed concordant comorbidities, 8 (14%) discordant comorbidities, and for 5 (8%) the type of comorbidity was not specified. The strength of the supporting evidence was moderate for 25% (15/59) and low for 37% (22/59) of the recommendations. In addition, for 73% (43/59) of the recommendations the evidence was not adequately translated into the guidelines., Conclusions/significance: Our study showed that the applicability of current evidence-based guidelines to patients with comorbid conditions is limited. Most guidelines do not provide explicit guidance on treatment of patients with comorbidity, particularly for discordant combinations. Guidelines should be more explicit about the applicability of their recommendations to patients with comorbidity. Future clinical trials should also include patients with the most prevalent combinations of chronic conditions.

Objective: Patient involvement in medical decision making has been suggested to contribute to patients' satisfaction and better patient outcomes. Decision aids are particularly useful for preference-sensitive decisions. Ideally, these should be based on up-to-date evidence-based guidelines. The objective of this project was to develop a generic format for development and maintenance of decision aids based on evidence-based guidelines., Methods: Decision aids, evidence-based guidelines and IPDAS standards were used for development of a generic format for decision aids. Patient focus groups were used to assess patients' information needs, expectations, personal values and preferences for presentation of information., Results: We developed a generic format for decision aids and six specific decision aids derived from evidence-based guidelines. The decision aids were published on the Dutch national health care portal. Furthermore, we reached formal agreement on ownership and maintenance of the decision aids with all stakeholders. We achieved these results within 12 months., Conclusion: Our generic format facilitated the efficient production of specific decision aids based on evidence-based guidelines., Practice Implications: If guidelines and decision aids are developed in parallel, high-quality patient information can be produced within a short time frame. The process of development should include adequate patient involvement and a strategy for maintenance.

Background: Effective literature searching is particularly important for clinical practice guideline development. Sophisticated searching and filtering mechanisms are needed to help ensure that all relevant research is reviewed., Purpose: To assess the methods used for the selection of evidence for guideline development by evidence-based guideline development organizations., Methods: A semistructured questionnaire assessing the databases, search filters and evaluation methods used for literature retrieval was distributed to eight major organizations involved in evidence-based guideline development., Results: All of the organizations used search filters as part of guideline development. The medline database was the primary source accessed for literature retrieval. The OVID or SilverPlatter interfaces were used in preference to the freely accessed PubMed interface. The Cochrane Library, embase, cinahl and psycinfo databases were also frequently used by the organizations. All organizations reported the intention to improve and validate their filters for finding literature specifically relevant for guidelines., Discussion: In the first international survey of its kind, eight major guideline development organizations indicated a strong interest in identifying, improving and standardizing search filters to improve guideline development. It is to be hoped that this will result in the standardization of, and open access to, search filters, an improvement in literature searching outcomes and greater collaboration among guideline development organizations.

Background: Clinical guidelines are considered important instruments to improve quality in health care. Since 1998 the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) produced evidence-based clinical guidelines, based on a standardized program. New developments in the field of guideline research raised the need to evaluate and update the KNGF guideline program. Purpose of this study is to compare different guideline development programs and review the KNGF guideline program for physical therapy in the Netherlands, in order to update the program., Method: Six international guideline development programs were selected, and the 23 criteria of the AGREE Instrument were used to evaluate the guideline programs. Information about the programs was retrieved from published handbooks of the organizations. Also, the Dutch program for guideline development in physical therapy was evaluated using the AGREE criteria. Further comparison the six guideline programs was carried out using the following elements of the guideline development processes: Structure and organization; Preparation and initiation; Development; Validation; Dissemination and implementation; Evaluation and update., Results: Compliance with the AGREE criteria of the guideline programs was high. Four programs addressed 22 AGREE criteria, and two programs addressed 20 AGREE criteria. The previous Dutch program for guideline development in physical therapy lacked in compliance with the AGREE criteria, meeting only 13 criteria. Further comparison showed that all guideline programs perform systematic literature searches to identify the available evidence. Recommendations are formulated and graded, based on evidence and other relevant factors. It is not clear how decisions in the development process are made. In particular, the process of translating evidence into practice recommendations can be improved., Conclusion: As a result of international developments and consensus, the described processes for developing clinical practice guidelines have much in common. The AGREE criteria are common basis for the development of guidelines, although it is not clear how final decisions are made. Detailed comparison of the different guideline programs was used for updating the Dutch program. As a result the updated KNGF program complied with 22 AGREE criteria. International discussion is continuing and will be used for further improvement of the program.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines should be based on the best available evidence. However, this evidence is often incomplete, controversial, or lacking. Other considerations beyond the evidence are therefore needed to be able to formulate specific and applicable recommendations for clinical practice., Objective: The aim of this study is to obtain consensus among experts about a set of domains and items covering the most relevant 'other considerations' to formulate recommendations in evidence-based guideline development., Methods: An initial list of 10 domains and 49 items for a systematic and considered judgement of scientific evidence was generated from the literature. A panel of Dutch experts in guideline development tested this list using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently score the relevance of the items on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 'very important' to 'not important'. The final list consisted of items that were included by at least 60% consensus., Results: Twenty-eight experts participated in the first Delphi round and 21 of them in the second round. High scoring domains were 'clinical relevance', 'safety', and 'availability of resources'. There was consensus about the relevance of 37 items. The domain 'conflicts of interest by industry' was excluded because of lack of consensus., Conclusion: This is the first formal consensus approach towards structuring the considered judgement process in formulating recommendations in clinical guidelines. The final list of items can be used to facilitate the process of guideline development. The next step is to test the practical usefulness and applicability of this list in guideline development.

Objective: To compare four recent guidelines on uncomplicated cystitis and to examine how cultural factors may have affected recommendations., Design: Descriptive study with a qualitative analysis of authors' reasons for recommendations., Material: Guidelines for general practitioners published 1999-2000 from Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium on diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated cystitis. Opinions of the guideline authors on the influence of local factors on the recommendations were collected before and after feedback on the differences between the guidelines., Results: Few cited references were shared between the guidelines, and recommendations differed substantially, especially on diagnostic strategies and referral criteria. The authors attributed parts of the differences to local factors. German and Belgian authors stressed the need for safety in their diagnostic and therapeutic approach, while Dutch authors felt confident in their gatekeeper role and the Norwegian authors mainly relied on "the evidence". Dutch and Belgian authors perceived patients to hold power, German authors referred to the power of the sub-specialists, while the Norwegians aimed to share power with the patient through a patient-centred approach., Conclusion: There are substantial differences even between high-standard guidelines on the same well-defined clinical entity. The selection of literature data, and diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations, seemed to be influenced by such cultural aspects as habits, the patient's expectations, and the structure of the healthcare system.

Objective: To describe systematically the structures and working methods of guideline programs., Design: Descriptive survey using a questionnaire with 32 items based on a framework derived from the literature. Answers were tabulated and checked by participants., Study Participants: Key informants of 18 prominent guideline organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and nine European countries., Main Outcome Measures: History, aims, methodology, products and deliveries, implementation, evaluation, procedure for updating guidelines, and future plans., Results: Most guideline programs were established to improve the quality and effectiveness of health care. Most use electronic databases to collect evidence and systematic reviews to analyze the evidence. Consensus procedures are used when evidence is lacking. All guidelines are reviewed before publication. Authorization is commonly used to endorse guidelines. All guidelines are furnished with tools for application and the Internet is widely used for dissemination. Implementation strategies vary among different organizations, with larger organizations leaving this to local organizations. Almost all have a quality assurance system for their programs. Half of the programs do not have formal update procedures., Conclusions: Principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs. Recent programs are benefiting from the methodology created by long-standing programs. Differences are found in the emphasis on dissemination and implementation, probably due to differences in health care systems and political and cultural factors. International collaboration should be encouraged to improve guideline methodology and to globalize the collection and analysis of evidence needed for guideline development.

Rationale, aims and objectives: Supporting evidence for diagnostic test recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should not only include diagnostic accuracy, but also downstream consequences of the test result on patient‐relevant outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which evidence‐based CPGs about diagnostic tests cover all relevant test‐treatment pathway components. Methods: We performed a systematic document analysis and quality assessment of publicly accessible CPGs about three common diagnostic tests: C‐reactive protein, colonoscopy and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Evaluation of the impact of the full test‐treatment pathway (diagnostic accuracy, burden of the test, natural course of target condition, treatment effectiveness, and link between test result and administration of treatment) on patient relevant outcomes was considered best practice for developing medical test recommendations. Results: We retrieved 15 recommendations in 15 CPGs. The methodological quality of the CPGs varied from poor to excellent. Ten recommendations considered diagnostic accuracy. Four of these were funded on a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence. None of the CPGs evaluated all steps of the test‐treatment pathway. Burden of the test was considered in three CPGs, but without systematically reviewing the evidence. Natural course was considered in two CPGs, without a systematic review of the evidence. In three recommendations, treatment effectiveness was considered, supported with a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence in one CPG. The link between test result and treatment administration was not considered in any CPG. Conclusions: The included CPGs hardly seem to consider evidence about test consequences on patient‐relevant outcomes. This might be explained by reporting issues and challenging methodology. Future research is needed to investigate how to facilitate guideline developers in explicit reliable consideration of all steps of a test‐treatment pathway when developing diagnostic test recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Neuropathic pain is a common symptom, present in 39% of the patients with cancer pain. Treating this type of pain is challenging, as this patient group is often frail and has comorbidities which increase the risk of side events and hence influences their quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) can be helpful for clinicians, especially when scientific evidence is uncertain or weak. In this study, we focused on the quality of the review of the literature used in treatment recommendations in the selected European CPGs. Methods In a previous study, 9 CPGs from European countries that contained at least one paragraph on treatment for neuropathic pain in cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. Results In all CPGs, amitriptylin was mentioned as the drug of first choice. Six guidelines proposed also gabapentinoids. Only 30 of the 163 citations (18%) were based on studies in patients with cancer. Seven CPGs did not argue the indirect evidence due to extrapolation of study results from non-cancer to patients with cancer. Conclusion The majority of guideline development groups extrapolated their results from non-cancer publications to formulate recommendations. Consequently, these guidelines fail to address important issues such as altered kinetics and side effect profiles in these patients. We recommend creating specific recommendations by an international expert group for the treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with cancer supported by targeted research in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Neuropathic pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer, which needs a more specific algorithm than nociceptive pain or neuropathic pain from other origin. Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) can be helpful in optimizing the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. Methods In this study, 9 national CPGs in Europe on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year, and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. Results Nine CPGs including recommendations on neuropathic pain could be selected and were assessed. In total, they used 149 references of which 72 (48%) were about cancer conditions, 39 (26%) about neuropathic pain, and only 3 about neuropathic pain in patients with cancer (2%). Only 28 (19%) references were shared between 2 or more guidelines. There was only one shared reference specifically related to cancer neuropathic pain. Recommendations and their evidence grading strongly differ between CPGs. Conclusion This work demonstrates an important heterogeneity between European recommendations on diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main weaknesses are the low level of evidence and the absence of specific data focusing on neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. We recommend that physicians dealing with neuropathic pain in patients with cancer should be specially trained, that a specific methodology to develop CPGs should followed, and that specific research should be developed on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 19% and 39% of patients with cancer pain suffer from neuropathic pain. Its diagnosis and treatment is still challenging. Yet, national clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) have been developed in several European countries to assist practitioners in managing these patients safely and legally. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the development and reporting of these CPGs. Methods In collaboration with the European Federation of IASP Chapters, a European inventory of CPGs was conducted. Inclusion criteria were at least one paragraph dedicated to the treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument, 2 appraisers independently assessed the quality of the development process of the included CPGs in 6 quality domains. Besides, CPGs developed by governmental organization were compared with those developed by professional societies using t-tests. Results Mean scores of the domains 'scope and purpose' (80%) and 'clarity of presentation' (61%) were satisfactory, 'stakeholder involvement' (58%), 'rigor of development' (57%), and 'editorial independence' (53%) were acceptable, and 'applicability' was insufficient (39%). Governmental guidelines had higher quality scores than professional society guidelines for domain 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' ( P < 0.01). Conclusions The quality of the development process of the 9 included CPGs varied widely. CPGs should be developed within a structured guideline program, including methodological support. As developing a CPG is expensive and time-consuming, we recommend more international cooperation to increase quality and lower the development costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]