The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure

Background: Evidence-based guidelines have the potential to improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources-especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development-the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline. Results: Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 un-rateable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 were based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) - the majority was congruent. Incongruity was found where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer. Conclusion: The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines

Intraarticular cortisone injection for osteoarthritis of the hip. Is it effective? Is it safe?

Osteoarthritis of the hip is a significant source of morbidity in the elderly. Treatment guidelines are available for the management of hip osteoarthritis, but these do not address the application of intraarticular corticosteroid injection. The intraarticular injection of corticosteroid is used in the management of other large joint osteoarthritic diseases and is well studied in the knee, however, this data cannot be used to make sound clinical decisions regarding its use for hip osteoarthritis. There are also concerns regarding the safety of this modality. Review of the published literature reveals that there are eight trials examining the efficacy of intraarticular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis and of these only four are randomized controlled trials. In general, the available literature demonstrates a short-term reduction of pain with corticosteroid injection and is indicated for patients refractory to non-pharmacologic or analgesic and NSAID therapy. The use of radiologic-guidance is recommended and, with proper sterile technique, the risk of adverse outcomes is very low. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to further examine the efficacy and safety of intraarticular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis