Clinical practice guidelines for the foot and ankle in rheumatoid arthritis: a critical appraisal

Background: Clinical practice guidelines are recommendations systematically developed to assist clinical decision-making and inform healthcare. In current rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guidelines, management of the foot and ankle is under-represented and the quality of recommendation is uncertain. This study aimed to identify and critically appraise clinical practice guidelines for foot and ankle management in RA. Methods: Guidelines were identified electronically and through hand searching. Search terms 'rheumatoid arthritis', 'clinical practice guidelines' and related synonyms were used. Critical appraisal and quality rating were conducted using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Results: Twenty-four guidelines were included. Five guidelines were high quality and recommended for use. Five high quality and seven low quality guidelines were recommended for use with modifications. Seven guidelines were low quality and not recommended for use. Five early and twelve established RA guidelines were recommended for use. Only two guidelines were foot and ankle specific. Five recommendation domains were identified in both early and established RA guidelines. These were multidisciplinary team care, foot healthcare access, foot health assessment/review, orthoses/insoles/splints, and therapeutic footwear. Established RA guidelines also had an 'other foot care treatments' domain. Conclusions: Foot and ankle management for RA features in many clinical practice guidelines recommended for use. Unfortunately, supporting evidence in the guidelines is low quality. Agreement levels are predominantly 'expert opinion' or 'good clinical practice'. More research investigating foot and ankle management for RA is needed prior to inclusion in clinical practice guidelines

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 16. Evaluation

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the last of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on evaluating guidelines and recommendations, including their quality, whether they are likely to be up-to-date, and their implementation. We also considered the role of guideline developers in undertaking evaluations that are needed to inform recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Our answers to these questions were informed by a review of instruments for evaluating guidelines, several studies of the need for updating guidelines, discussions of the pros and cons of different research designs for evaluating the implementation of guidelines, and consideration of the use of uncertainties identified in systematic reviews to set research priorities. How should the quality of guidelines or recommendations be appraised? • WHO should put into place processes to ensure that both internal and external review of guidelines is undertaken routinely. • A checklist, such as the AGREE instrument, should be used. • The checklist should be adapted and tested to ensure that it is suitable to the broad range of recommendations that WHO produces, including public health and health policy recommendations, and that it includes questions about equity and other items that are particularly important for WHO guidelines. When should guidelines or recommendations be updated? • Processes should be put into place to ensure that guidelines are monitored routinely to determine if they are in need of updating. • People who are familiar with the topic, such as Cochrane review groups, should do focused, routine searches for new research that would require revision of the guideline. • Periodic review of guidelines by experts not involved in developing the guidelines should also be considered. • Consideration should be given to establishing guideline panels that are ongoing, to facilitate routine updating, with members serving fixed periods with a rotating membership. How should the impact of guidelines or recommendations be evaluated? • WHO headquarters and regional offices should support member states and those responsible for policy decisions and implementation to evaluate the impact of their decisions and actions by providing advice regarding impact assessment, practical support and coordination of efforts. • Before-after evaluations should be used cautiously and when there are important uncertainties regarding the effects of a policy or its implementation, randomised evaluations should be used when possible. What responsibility should WHO take for ensuring that important uncertainties are addressed by future research when the evidence needed to inform recommendations is lacking? • Guideline panels should routinely identify important uncertainties and research priorities. This source of potential priorities for research should be used systematically to inform priority-setting processes for global research

Development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs): comparing approaches

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to support implementation of evidence has been demonstrated, it is not currently being achieved. CPGs are both poorly developed and ineffectively implemented. To improve clinical practice and health outcomes, both well-developed CPGs and effective methods of CPG implementation are needed. We sought to establish whether there is agreement on the fundamental characteristics of an evidence-based CPG development process and to explore whether the level of guidance provided in CPG development handbooks is sufficient for people using these handbooks to be able to apply it.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>CPG development handbooks were identified through a broad search of published and grey literature. Documents published in English produced by national or international organisations purporting to support development of evidence-based CPGs were included. A list of 14 key elements of a CPG development process was developed. Two authors read each handbook. For each handbook a judgement was made as to how it addressed each element; assigned as: 'mentioned and clear guidance provided', 'mentioned but limited practical detail provided ', or 'not mentioned'.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Six CPG development handbooks were included. These were produced by the Council of Europe, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK, the New Zealand Guidelines Group, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, and the World Health Organization (WHO).</p> <p>There was strong concordance between the handbooks on the key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process. All six of the handbooks require and provide guidance on establishment of a multidisciplinary guideline development group, involvement of consumers, identification of clinical questions or problems, systematic searches for and appraisal of research evidence, a process for drafting recommendations, consultation with others beyond the guideline development group, and ongoing review and updating of the CPG.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process are addressed with strong concordance by existing CPG development handbooks. Further research is required to determine why these key elements are often not addressed by CPG developers.</p

Radiofrequency and Microwave Ablation Compared to Systemic Chemotherapy and to Partial Hepatectomy in the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To assess safety and outcome of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as compared to systemic chemotherapy and partial hepatectomy (PH) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies with multivariate analysis and/or matching were included. Guidelines from National Guideline Clearinghouse and Guidelines International Network were assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The search revealed 3530 records; 328 were selected for full-text review; 48 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 2 randomized studies, 26 comparative observational studies, 2 guideline-articles and 10 case series; in addition 13 guidelines were evaluated. Literature to assess the effectiveness of ablation was limited. RFA + systemic chemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy alone. PH was superior to RFA alone but not to RFA + PH or to MWA. Compared to PH, RFA showed fewer complications, MWA did not. Outcomes were subject to residual confounding since ablation was only employed for unresectable disease. The results from the EORTC-CLOCC trial, the comparable survival for ablation + PH versus PH alone, the potential to induce long-term disease control and the low complication rate argue in favour of ablation over chemotherapy alone. Further randomized comparisons of ablation to current-day chemotherapy alone should therefore be considered unethical. Hence, the highest achievable level of evidence for unresectable CRLM seems reached. The apparent selection bias from previous studies and the superior safety profile mandate the setup of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to surgery

Follow-up care for men with prostate cancer and the role of primary care: a systematic review of international guidelines

The optimal role for primary care in providing follow-up for men with prostate cancer is uncertain. A systematic review of international guidelines was undertaken to help identify key elements of existing models of follow-up care to establish a theoretical basis for evaluating future complex interventions. Many guidelines provide insufficient information to judge the reliability of the recommendations. Although the PSA test remains the cornerstone of follow-up, the diversity of recommendations on the provision of follow-up care reflects the current lack of research evidence on which to base firm conclusions. The review highlights the importance of transparent guideline development procedures and the need for robust primary research to inform future evidence-based models of follow-up care for men with prostate cancer

Clinical practice guidelines within the Southern African development community: a descriptive study of the quality of guideline development and concordance with best evidence for five priority diseases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Reducing the burden of disease relies on availability of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). There is limited data on availability, quality and content of guidelines within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). This evaluation aims to address this gap in knowledge and provide recommendations for regional guideline development.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We prioritised five diseases: HIV in adults, malaria in children and adults, pre-eclampsia, diarrhoea in children and hypertension in primary care. A comprehensive electronic search to locate guidelines was conducted between June and October 2010 and augmented with email contact with SADC Ministries of Health. Independent reviewers used the AGREE II tool to score six quality domains reporting the guideline development process. Alignment of the evidence-base of the guidelines was evaluated by comparing their content with key recommendations from accepted reference guidelines, identified with a content expert, and percentage scores were calculated.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>We identified 30 guidelines from 13 countries, publication dates ranging from 2003-2010. Overall the '<it>scope and purpose' </it>and '<it>clarity and presentation' </it>domains of the AGREE II instrument scored highest, median 58%(range 19-92) and 83%(range 17-100) respectively. '<it>Stakeholder involvement' </it>followed with median 39%(range 6-75). '<it>Applicability'</it>, '<it>rigour of development' </it>and '<it>editorial independence' </it>scored poorly, all below 25%. Alignment with evidence was variable across member states, the lowest scores occurring in older guidelines or where the guideline being evaluated was part of broader primary healthcare CPG rather than a disease-specific guideline.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This review identified quality gaps and variable alignment with best evidence in available guidelines within SADC for five priority diseases. Future guideline development processes within SADC should better adhere to global reporting norms requiring broader consultation of stakeholders and transparency of process. A regional guideline support committee could harness local capacity to support context appropriate guideline development.</p