Search

Since the beginning of its guidelines program in 1993, ASCO has continually sought ways to produce a greater number of guidelines while maintaining its commitment to using the rigorous development methods that minimize the biases that threaten the validity of practice recommendations. ASCO is implementing a range of guideline development and implementation innovations. In this article, we describe innovations that are designed to (1) integrate consideration of multiple chronic conditions into practice guidelines; (2) keep more of its guidelines current by applying evolving signals or (more) rapid, for-cause updating approaches; (3) increase the number of high-quality guidelines available to its membership through endorsement and adaptation of other groups' products; (4) improve coverage of its members' guideline needs through a new topic nomination process; and (5) enhance dissemination and promote implementation of ASCO guidelines in the oncology practice community through a network of volunteer ambassadors. We close with a summary of ASCO's plans to facilitate the integration of data from its rapid learning system, CancerLinQ, into ASCO guidelines and to develop tactics through which guideline recommendations can be embedded in clinicians' workflow in digital form. We highlight the challenges inherent in reconciling the need to provide clinicians with more interactive, point-of-care guidance with ASCO's abiding commitment to methodologic rigor in guideline development., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Continuous escalation in methodological and procedural rigor for evidence-based processes in guideline development is associated with increasing costs and production delays that threaten sustainability. While health research methodologists are appropriately responsible for promoting increasing rigor in guideline development, guideline sponsors are responsible for funding such processes., Discussion: This paper acknowledges that other stakeholders in addition to methodologists should be more involved in negotiating trade-offs between methodological procedures and efficiency in guideline production to produce guidelines that are 'good enough' to be trustworthy and affordable under specific circumstances. The argument for reasonable methodological compromise to meet practical circumstances is consistent with current implicit methodological practice. This paper proposes a conceptual tool as a framework to be used by different stakeholders in negotiating, and explicitly reporting, reasonable compromises for trustworthy as well as cost-worthy guidelines. The framework helps fill a transparency gap in how methodological choices in guideline development are made. The principle, 'when good is good enough' can serve as a basis for this approach. The conceptual tool 'Efficiency-Validity Methodological Continuum' acknowledges trade-offs between validity and efficiency in evidence-based guideline development and allows for negotiation, guided by methodologists, of reasonable methodological compromises among stakeholders. Collaboration among guideline stakeholders in the development process is necessary if evidence-based guideline development is to be sustainable.

Objective: To explore the role of a four-item Global Rating Scale (GRS) that could be used in place of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II)., Study Design and Setting: A mixed four-factor design was used (User Type, Evaluation Type, Clinical Topic, Guideline). Participants were asked to read and evaluate a guideline using both the AGREE II draft and GRS or GRS only and to complete a series of questions regarding overall guideline quality, adoption, utility, and acceptability., Results: One GRS item varied as a function of User Type. Each item was a significant predictor of participants' outcome measures. All items were rated as useful by stakeholders. The GRS rating scores, outcome measures, and usefulness scores did not vary between the two Evaluation Type conditions. Correlations between the GRS and the outcome measures were stronger compared with those between the AGREE II draft and these measures., Conclusion: Although the GRS is less sensitive than the AGREE II in detecting differences in guideline quality as a function of User Type, its items did predict important outcome measures related to guideline adoption. The GRS may play a role in guideline evaluation, although further study is warranted., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the beta version of the AGREE II., Methods: We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high-and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual., Results: In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the beta-AGREE II could be improved., Interpretation: The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.

Background: We undertook research to improve the AGREE instrument, a tool used to evaluate guidelines. We tested a new seven-point scale, evaluated the usefulness of the original items in the instrument, investigated evidence to support shorter, tailored versions of the tool, and identified areas for improvement., Method: We report on one component of a larger study that used a mixed design with four factors (user type, clinical topic, guideline and condition). For the analysis reported in this article, we asked participants to read a guideline and use the AGREE items to evaluate it based on a seven-point scale, to complete three outcome measures related to adoption of the guideline, and to provide feedback on the instrument's usefulness and how to improve it., Results: Guideline developers gave lower-quality ratings than did clinicians or policy-makers. Five of six domains were significant predictors of participants' outcome measures (p < 0.05). All domains and items were rated as useful by stakeholders (mean scores > 4.0) with no significant differences by user type (p > 0.05). Internal consistency ranged between 0.64 and 0.89. Inter-rater reliability was satisfactory. We received feedback on how to improve the instrument., Interpretation: Quality ratings of the AGREE domains were significant predictors of outcome measures associated with guideline adoption: guideline endorsements, overall intentions to use guidelines, and overall quality of guidelines. All AGREE items were assessed as useful in determining whether a participant would use a guideline. No clusters of items were found more useful by some users than others. The measurement properties of the seven-point scale were promising. These data contributed to the refinements and release of the AGREE II.

In February 2008, Cancer Surgery Alberta hosted a conference on surgical outcomes and quality. The objective here is to review the interactions between quality/outcomes and guidelines, highlighting surgeons' roles. Potential interactions between quality measurement and guidelines are discussed. We analyzed data from practitioner surveys about guidelines to determine surgeons' participation compared with other specialists. The response rate of surgeons in both community-based and academic practices to guideline development surveys was equivalent to other cancer disciplines.

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of study quality assessment of primary studies in cancer practice guidelines., Methods: Reliable and valid study quality assessment scales were sought and applied to published reports of trials included in systematic reviews of cancer guidelines. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between quality scores and pooled odds ratios (OR) for mortality and need for blood transfusion., Results: Results found that that whether trials were classified as high or low quality depended on the scale used to assess them. Although the results of the sensitivity analyses found some variation in the ORs observed, the confidence intervals (CIs) of the pooled effects from each of the analyses of high quality trials overlapped with the CI of the pooled odds of all trials. Quality score was not predictive of pooled ORs studied here., Conclusions: Had sensitivity analyses based on study quality been conducted prospectively, it is highly unlikely that different conclusions would have been found or that different clinical recommendations would have emerged in the guidelines.

Purpose: Panels of experts are used to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) intended to be used by practitioners "in-the-field." Therefore, oncologists' participation in CPG development is an important strategy to promote CPG adoption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contributions of oncologists in-the-field to evidence-based CPG development using data from Ontario's cancer system., Methods: CPG development in Ontario includes surveys of oncologists' opinions, using a structured questionnaire, about draft recommendations that were developed from rigorous systematic reviews of evidence prepared by expert panels. Two research assistants reviewed background documents to trace the changes in CPG recommendations from draft to final stage to determine the contribution of oncologists' input to final recommendations. Changes to recommendations were categorized as either substantive (content or tone) or minor (ideas clarification or edits)., Results: From 2000 to 2003, 43 CPGs were developed. There were 87 changes to draft recommendations for 31 CPGs, of which 40 changes to 19 CPGs could be attributed to survey input from practicing oncologists. Of the 40 changes, 28 (70%) were judged to be substantive., Conclusion: Despite a rigorous evidence-based process for CPG development, practicing oncologists contribute substantially to the final recommendations approved by the expert panel. It is hypothesized that the responsiveness of expert panels to input from oncologists in-the-field will facilitate adoption of CPGs.

Objectives: Promoting the adoption of clinical practice guidelines is a challenging task. Research shows that adopters' beliefs about guidelines and the process of their development are important predictors of guideline use. Our objective is to report on the development and refinement of an instrument designed to measure oncologists' assessments of guidelines in oncology., Method: A theoretically derived instrument was drafted. Oncologists were asked to complete a questionnaire for each draft guideline they were asked to review. Factor analyses and multilevel modeling techniques were undertaken to explore the properties of the instrument and refine it., Results: A total of 488 Ontario clinicians were sent 1494 new questionnaires regarding 34 clinical practice guidelines produced between 1999 and 2002. A refined eighteen-item questionnaire with four stable factors that predicted 60 percent of the variance emerged. The factors are interpreted as guideline quality, applicability, acceptability, and comparative value. The four factors predicted oncologists' endorsements of draft guidelines and, with the exception of quality, predicted their intentions to use the guidelines. As expected, variation in the factor scores could be attributed more to the differences among the oncologist who completed the survey than to the differences among the guidelines themselves., Conclusions: An instrument composed of four stable and theoretically relevant factors emerged. The findings support the hypothesis that beliefs about guideline attributes and development attributes relate to oncologists' endorsement of and intentions to use guidelines. Our next step is to link the responses of the survey with actual clinical behavior.

Objectives: To describe a methodology used to keep practice guidelines up to date and to summarize data collected during the first year of implementing this plan with a cancer practice guidelines program., Methods: The updating strategy includes regular searches of peer-reviewed literature and meeting proceedings, review and interpretation of new evidence, review and revision of clinical recommendations, and notification to practitioners and policy makers about new evidence and its impact on recommendations., Results: Eighty pieces of new evidence were found relating to seventeen of the twenty guidelines included in this study. On average, four pieces of new evidence were found per guideline, but there was considerable variation across the guidelines. Of the eighty pieces, nineteen contributed to modifications of clinical recommendations in six practice guidelines, whereas the remaining evidence served to support the original recommendations. None of the modifications led to changes that advised against original recommendations. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and meeting proceedings yielded many pieces of evidence, whereas CancerLit and HealthStar did not contribute significantly to the overall yield. Furthermore, key pieces of evidence that led to modifications to the recommendations were often identified by members of the disease site groups before appearing in electronic databases., Conclusions: The updating process is resource intensive but yields important findings. In response to this evaluation, the updating protocol has been revised such that literature searches are conducted quarterly and the scope of sources searched routinely is restricted to MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and meeting proceedings.

Anemia resulting from cancer, or its treatment, is an important clinical problem increasingly treated with the recombinant hematopoietic growth factor erythropoietin. To address uncertainties regarding indications and efficacy, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of epoetin in patients with cancer. The guideline panel found good evidence to recommend use of epoetin as a treatment option for patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia with a hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL. Use of epoetin for patients with less severe anemia (hemoglobin < 12 g/dL but never below 10 g/dL) should be determined by clinical circumstances. Good evidence from clinical trials supports the use of subcutaneous epoetin thrice weekly (150 U/kg tiw) for a minimum of 4 weeks. Less strong evidence supports an alternative weekly (40,000 U/wk) dosing regimen, based on common clinical practice. With either administration schedule, dose escalation should be considered for those not responding to the initial dose. In the absence of response, continuing epoetin beyond 6 to 8 weeks does not appear to be beneficial. Epoetin should be titrated once the hemoglobin concentration reaches 12 g/dL. Evidence from one randomized controlled trial supports use of epoetin for patients with anemia associated with low-risk myelodysplasia not receiving chemotherapy; however, there are no published high-quality studies to support its use for anemia in other hematologic malignancies in the absence of chemotherapy. Therefore, for anemic patients with hematologic malignancies, it is recommended that physicians initiate conventional therapy and observe hematologic response before considering use of epoetin.