Search

Since acute abdomen requires accurate diagnosis and treatment within a particular time limit to prevent mortality, the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, in collaboration with four other medical societies, launched the Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen that were the first English guidelines in the world for the management of acute abdomen. Here we provide the highlights of these guidelines (all clinical questions and recommendations were shown in supplementary information). A systematic and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and primary treatment for acute abdomen was performed to develop the Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015. Because many types of pathophysiological events underlie acute abdomen, these guidelines cover the primary care of adult patients with nontraumatic acute abdomen. A total of 108 questions based on nine subject areas were used to compile 113 recommendations. The subject areas included definition, epidemiology, history taking, physical examination, laboratory test, imaging studies, differential diagnosis, initial treatment, and education. Japanese medical circumstances were considered for grading the recommendations to assure useful information. The two‐step methods for the initial management of acute abdomen were proposed. Early use of transfusion and analgesia, particularly intravenous acetaminophen, were recommended. The Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015 have been prepared as the first evidence‐based guidelines for the management of acute abdomen. We hope that these guidelines contribute to clinical practice and improve the primary care and prognosis of patients with acute abdomen. Highlight Mayumi and colleagues present the first English‐language evidence‐based guidelines for primary care of acute abdomen, developed by the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine in collaboration with four other medical societies. The guidelines provide recommendations for specific primary management of acute abdomen with 108 clinical questions and a two‐step flowchart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J‐SSCG 2016), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. Methods: Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two‐thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members. Results: A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J‐SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta‐analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs. Conclusions: Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese‐specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non‐specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.