Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations

While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of "living guidelines" realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: Understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias

This is the final version. Available from BMC via the DOI in this record. Additional materials are available on the GRADE-CERQual website (www.cerqual.org).Background: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area. Methods: We developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research. Results: We have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings. Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach. Conclusions: Further research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses.WHONorad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation)Research Council of NorwayCochrane Methods Innovation FundSouth African Medical Research Counci

Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several studies analyzed whether conventional journals in general medicine or specialties such as pediatrics endorse recommendations aiming to improve publication practice. Despite evidence showing benefits of these recommendations, the proportion of endorsing journals has been moderate to low and varied considerably for different recommendations. About half of pediatric journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report referred to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) but only about a quarter recommended registration of trials. We aimed to investigate to what extent pediatric open-access (OA) journals endorse these recommendations. We hypothesized that a high proportion of these journals have adopted recommendations on good publication practice since OA electronic publishing has been associated with a number of editorial innovations aiming at improved access and transparency.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified 41 journals publishing original research in the subject category "Health Sciences, Medicine (General), Pediatrics" of the Directory of Open Access Journals <url>http://www.doaj.org</url>. From the journals' online author instructions we extracted information regarding endorsement of four domains of editorial policy: the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, trial registration, disclosure of conflicts of interest and five major reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. Two investigators collected data independently.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Uniform Requirements were mentioned by 27 (66%) pediatric OA journals. Thirteen (32%) required or recommended trial registration prior to publication of a trial report. Conflict of interest policies were stated by 25 journals (61%). Advice about reporting guidelines was less frequent: CONSORT was referred to by 12 journals (29%) followed by other reporting guidelines (MOOSE, PRISMA or STARD) (8 journals, 20%) and STROBE (3 journals, 7%). The EQUATOR network, a platform of several guideline initiatives, was acknowledged by 4 journals (10%).</p> <p>Journals published by OA publishing houses gave more guidance than journals published by professional societies or other publishers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Pediatric OA journals mentioned certain recommendations such as the Uniform Requirements or trial registration more frequently than conventional journals; however, endorsement is still only moderate. Further research should confirm these exploratory findings in other medical fields and should clarify what the motivations and barriers are in implementing such policies.</p

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. METHODS: A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. RESULTS: 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials

GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence—An overview in the context of health decision-making

Objectives: The objective of the study is to present the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) conceptual approach to the assessment of certainty of evidence from modeling studies (i.e., certainty associated with model outputs). / Study Design and Setting: Expert consultations and an international multidisciplinary workshop informed development of a conceptual approach to assessing the certainty of evidence from models within the context of systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and health care decisions. The discussions also clarified selected concepts and terminology used in the GRADE approach and by the modeling community. Feedback from experts in a broad range of modeling and health care disciplines addressed the content validity of the approach. / Results: Workshop participants agreed that the domains determining the certainty of evidence previously identified in the GRADE approach (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, reporting bias, magnitude of an effect, dose–response relation, and the direction of residual confounding) also apply when assessing the certainty of evidence from models. The assessment depends on the nature of model inputs and the model itself and on whether one is evaluating evidence from a single model or multiple models. We propose a framework for selecting the best available evidence from models: 1) developing de novo, a model specific to the situation of interest, 2) identifying an existing model, the outputs of which provide the highest certainty evidence for the situation of interest, either “off-the-shelf” or after adaptation, and 3) using outputs from multiple models. We also present a summary of preferred terminology to facilitate communication among modeling and health care disciplines. / Conclusion: This conceptual GRADE approach provides a framework for using evidence from models in health decision-making and the assessment of certainty of evidence from a model or models. The GRADE Working Group and the modeling community are currently developing the detailed methods and related guidance for assessing specific domains determining the certainty of evidence from models across health care–related disciplines (e.g., therapeutic decision-making, toxicology, environmental health, and health economics)

RARE-Bestpractices: a platform for sharing best practices for the management of rare diseases

From 7th European Conference on Rare Diseases and Orphan Products (ECRD 2014).Rare diseases; clinical practice guidelines; recommendations. RARE-Bestpractices (http://www.rarebestpractices.eu) is a 4-year project (2013-2016) funded by the EC FP7. The project aims at improving clinical management of patients with rare diseases (RD) and at narrowing the existing gap in quality of healthcare among countries. Methods: RARE-Bestpractices (http://www.rarebestpractices.eu) involves 9 EU countries, including 15 partners from academic institutions, governmental bodies, patient organizations and networks, which will exploit the added value of integrating different contributions and viewpoints. The platform is developed involving both experts in RD research as well as experts in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and systematic reviews. Results: Project expected outputs include: 1) identification of challenges to be considered in deriving high quality standards for CPG on RD; 2) transparent procedures and criteria for the evaluation of CPG and their collection in a publicly searchable database; 3) identification of notation criteria to improve user understandability and implementation of CPG; 4) production of mechanisms to assess RD clinical research needs; 5) development of training activities targeted to key stakeholders to disseminate process and tools for developing and evaluating CPG; 6) the publication of a new scientific journal (http://rarejournal.org). Discussion: RARE-Bestpractices addresses the demands from both patients and health care providers for updated and high quality CPG on RD. The project will meet the requirements laid down by to the Directive 2011/24/EU, which endorses EU MS to develop European Reference Networks (ERNs) for RD; in fact, one main criterion for ERNs should be the competence to produce CPG and actively disseminate them among Centers of Expertise.N