Search

Objectives To assess how guidance documents for developing clinical guidelines (CGs) address the incorporation of patients' views in CGs. Study Design and Setting Systematic review to identify the methodology provided in guidance documents for incorporating (1) patients or representatives and (2) patients' views in the CG development process. The search was performed in 2017 in five databases. Two authors selected the studies, and data extraction was double-checked. Results We included guidance documents from 56 institutions. Of those, 40 (71.4%) recommended the inclusion of patients or their representatives, mainly for developing recommendations (14/40, 35.0%); reviewing the final version (13/40, 32.5%); formulating clinical questions (13/40, 32.5%); defining the scope and objectives (10/40, 25.0%); and dissemination and implementation (10/40, 25.0%). Concrete methods on how to incorporate patients were provided by 47.5% (19/40) of institutions. Forty (71.4%) institutions provided additional strategies to incorporate patients' views. The majority (30/40, 75.0%) suggested sources for obtaining these views (consultation with patients [24/40, 60.0%], using panels' judgment [10/40, 25.0%], conducting de novo research [10/40, 25.0%], or a systematic review [9/40, 22.5%]). Conclusion Although most institutions suggest incorporating patients and their views when developing CGs, little detail is provided on how to do this. Institutions should provide more guidance as this could have a positive impact in guideline applicability. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.

Introduction Due to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG. Methods and analysis To develop the tool, we will use the results and conclusions of a systematic review of methodological research on prioritisation processes for updating and will adopt a methodological approach we have successfully implemented in a previous experience. We will perform a multistep process including (1) generation of an initial version of the tool, (2) optimisation of the tool (feasibility test of the tool, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, external review by CG methodologists and users and pilot test of the tool) and (3) approval of the final version of the tool. At each step of the process, we will (1) calculate absolute frequencies and proportions (quantitative data), (2) use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions (qualitative data) and (3) draft a final report, discuss results and refine the previous versions of the tool. Finally, we will calculate intraclass coefficients with 95% CIs for each item and overall as indicators of agreement among reviewers. Ethics and dissemination We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journal and communicated to interested stakeholders. The tool could support the standardisation of prioritisation processes for updating CGs and therefore have important implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CG field. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved.

Background: Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence. Methods: We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR). Results: We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50. Conclusions: This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations. © 2017 The Author(s).

Background: Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effect of health care interventions. They rely on comprehensive access to the available scientific literature. Electronic search strategies alone may not suffice, requiring the implementation of a handsearching approach. We have developed a database to provide an Internet-based platform from which handsearching activities can be coordinated, including a procedure to streamline the submission of these references into CENTRAL, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials. Methods: We developed a database and a descriptive analysis. Through brainstorming and discussion among stakeholders involved in handsearching projects, we designed a database that met identified needs that had to be addressed in order to ensure the viability of handsearching activities. Three handsearching teams pilot tested the proposed database. Once the final version of the database was approved, we proceeded to train the staff involved in handsearching. Results: The proposed database is called BADERI (Database of Iberoamerican Clinical Trials and Journals, by its initials in Spanish). BADERI was officially launched in October 2015, and it can be accessed at www.baderi.com/login.php free of cost. BADERI has an administration subsection, from which the roles of users are managed; a references subsection, where information associated to identified controlled clinical trials (CCTs) can be entered; a reports subsection, from which reports can be generated to track and analyse the results of handsearching activities; and a built-in free text search engine. BADERI allows all references to be exported in ProCite files that can be directly uploaded into CENTRAL. To date, 6284 references to CCTs have been uploaded to BADERI and sent to CENTRAL. The identified CCTs were published in a total of 420 journals related to 46 medical specialties. The year of publication ranged between 1957 and 2016. Conclusions: BADERI allows the efficient management of handsearching activities across different countries and institutions. References to all CCTs available in BADERI can be readily submitted to CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews. © 2017 The Author(s).

Background: When two or more cardiovascular risk factors occur in one individual, they may interact in a multiplicative way promoting cardiovascular disease. Exercise has proven to be effective in controlling individual risk factors but its effect on overall cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. Objectives: To assess the effects of exercise training in people with increased cardiovascular risk but without a concurrent cardiovascular disease on general cardiovascular mortality, incidence of cardiovascular events, and total cardiovascular risk. Search methods: A search was conducted in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 10 of 12), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 November 2013), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE via Ovid (1947 to Week 47 2013), CINAHL Plus with Full Text via EBSCO (to November 2013), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to 22 November 2013), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 22 November 2013) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). We did not apply any date or language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomized clinical trials comparing aerobic or resistance exercise training versus no exercise or any standard approach that does not include exercise. Participants had to be 18 years of age or older with an average 10-year Framingham risk score of 10% for cardiovascular disease over 10 years, or with two or more cardiovascular risk factors, and no history of cardiovascular disease. Data collection and analysis: The selection of studies and subsequent data collection process were conducted by two independent authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus. The results were reported descriptively. It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis because of the high heterogeneity and high risk of bias in the included studies. Main results: A total of four studies were included that involved 823 participants, 412 in the exercise group and 411 in the control group. Follow-up of participants ranged from 16 weeks to 6 months. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias. Meta-analysis was not possible because the interventions (setting, type and intensity of exercise) and outcome measurements were not comparable, and the risk of bias in the identified studies was high. No study assessed cardiovascular or all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events as individual outcomes. One or more of the studies reported on total cardiovascular risk, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life but the available evidence was not sufficient to determine the effectiveness of exercise. Adverse events and smoking cessation were not assessed in the included studies. Authors' conclusions: Evidence to date is entirely limited to small studies with regard to sample size, short-term follow-up, and high risk of methodological bias, which makes it difficult to derive any conclusions on the efficacy or safety of aerobic or resistance exercise on groups with increased cardiovascular risk or in individuals with two or more coexisting risk factors. Further randomized clinical trials assessing controlled exercise programmes on total cardiovascular risk in individuals are warranted. © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration.