Hematuria as a Marker of Occult Urinary Tract Cancer: Advice for High-Value Care From the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND: The presence of blood in the urine, or hematuria, is a common finding in clinical practice and can sometimes be a sign of occult cancer. This article describes the clinical epidemiology of hematuria and the current state of practice and science in this context and provides suggestions for clinicians evaluating patients with hematuria. METHODS: A narrative review of available clinical guidelines and other relevant studies on the evaluation of hematuria was conducted, with particular emphasis on considerations for urologic referral. HIGH-VALUE CARE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should include gross hematuria in their routine review of systems and specifically ask all patients with microscopic hematuria about any history of gross hematuria. HIGH-VALUE CARE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should not use screening urinalysis for cancer detection in asymptomatic adults. HIGH-VALUE CARE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should confirm heme-positive results of dipstick testing with microscopic urinalysis that demonstrates 3 or more erythrocytes per high-powered field before initiating further evaluation in all asymptomatic adults. HIGH-VALUE CARE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should refer for further urologic evaluation in all adults with gross hematuria, even if self-limited. HIGH-VALUE CARE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should consider urology referral for cystoscopy and imaging in adults with microscopically confirmed hematuria in the absence of some demonstrable benign cause. HIGH-VALUE CARE ADVICE 6: Clinicians should pursue evaluation of hematuria even if the patient is receiving antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. HIGH-VALUE CARE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should not obtain urinary cytology or other urine-based molecular markers for bladder cancer detection in the initial evaluation of hematuria

A Value Framework for Cancer Screening: Advice for High-Value Care From the American College of Physicians

MHA, for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians* Experts, professional societies, and consumer groups often recommend different strategies for cancer screening. These strategies vary in the intensity of their search for asymptomatic lesions and in their value. This article outlines a framework for thinking about the value of varying intensities of cancer screening. The authors conclude that increasing intensity beyond an optimal level leads to low-value screening and speculate about pressures that encourage overly intensive, low-value screening

Management of Acute and Recurrent Gout: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the management of gout. Methods: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials; systematic reviews; and large observational studies published between January 2010 and March 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included pain, joint swelling and tenderness, activities of daily living, patient global assessment, recurrence, intermediate outcomes of serum urate levels, and harms. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute or recurrent gout. Recommendation 1: ACP recommends that clinicians choose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use low-dose colchicine when using colchicine to treat acute gout. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: ACP recommends against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: ACP recommends that clinicians discuss benefits, harms, costs, and individual preferences with patients before initiating urate-lowering therapy, including concomitant prophylaxis, in patients with recurrent gout attacks. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)

The role of scoping reviews in guideline development.

Systematic reviews have long been seen as critical in the development of trustworthy guidelines. However, as newer synthesis methodologies such as scoping reviews become more common, there is a need to discuss the potential role of these methodologies within guideline development. This article aims to summarize and provide examples of the role of scoping reviews in guideline development. Drawing on the expertise of the JBI scoping review group and guideline developers, this discussion article summarizes five key roles of scoping reviews in guideline development. Guideline developers can consider using scoping reviews when they need to: 1) know what existing guidelines could be adopted, adapted or adoloped; 2) understand the breadth of evidence that exists on a particular issue and help with the development and prioritization of questions, or identify previous systematic reviews; 3) identify contextual factors and information relevant for a clinical practice recommendation; 4) identify potential strategies for implementation and monitoring and; 5) conduct evidence surveillance and living mapping approaches. Scoping reviews conducted and reported according to best-practice guidelines and standards can be used in conjunction with systematic reviews to support the work of guideline developers usefully

A reporting tool for practice guidelines in healthcare: the RIGHT Statement

The quality of reporting of practice guidelines is often poor and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for the reporting of practice guidelines in healthcare. An international working group (the RIGHT working group) was therefore established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing health research reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. We developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration document. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that we consider essential for good reporting of practice guidelines. These items encompass basic information (items 1-4), background (items 5-9), evidence (items 10-12), recommendations (items 13-15), review and quality assurance (items 16-17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18-19), and other information (items 20-22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers when reporting their guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help healthcare practitioners understand and implement a guideline

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist.

Updating of systematic reviews is generally more efficient than starting all over again when new evidence emerges, but to date there has been no clear guidance on how to do this. This guidance helps authors of systematic reviews, commissioners, and editors decide when to update a systematic review, and then how to go about updating the review.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the BMJ Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i350

COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST): Protocol of a Multi-Center Prospective Cohort Study for Active Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines' Side Effects.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine-related side effects have a determinant role in the public decision regarding vaccination. Therefore, this study has been designed to actively monitor the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines globally. A multi-country, three-phase study including a cross-sectional survey to test for the short-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among target population groups. In the second phase, we will monitor the booster doses' side effects, while in the third phase, the long-term safety and effectiveness will be investigated. A validated, self-administered questionnaire will be used to collect data from the target population; Results: The study protocol has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT04834869. CoVaST is the first independent study aiming to monitor the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines following booster doses, and the long-term safety and effectiveness of said vaccines.This study protocol preparation was funded by Masaryk University, grant numbers MUNI/IGA/1543/2020 and MUNI/A/1608/2020.S

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

Clinical question Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials triggered the clinical questions: Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? Is there a preferable approach among the screening options faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year or every two years, or a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy

GRADE guidelines : 19. assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-risk of bias and indirectness

Q1Q194-104Objectives The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes. Study Design and Setting We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback. Results This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at “high certainty”; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose subdomains of risk of bias as selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness. Conclusion This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes