WFH Guidelines for the Management of Hemophilia, 3rd edition Srivastava, Alok; Santagostino, Elena; Dougall, Alison ...
Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia,
August 2020, 2020-08-00, 20200801, 2020-08-01, Letnik:
26, Številka:
S6
Journal Article
Background American College of Chest Physicians' (CHEST) new Living Guidelines Model will not only provide clinicians with guidance based on the most clinically relevant and current science but will ...also allow expert-informed guidance to fill in any gaps in the existing evidence. These guidance documents will be updated, as necessary, using one or more of three processes: (1) evidence-based guidelines, (2) trustworthy consensus statements, and (3) a hybrid of the other two. The new Living Guidelines Model will be more sustainable and will encourage maintenance of current and targeted recommendations and suggestions. Methods Over recent years, the Guidelines Oversight Committee (GOC), which consists of CHEST members with methodologic experience and other stakeholders, developed a rigorous process for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. This guideline methodology will be used to the greatest extent permitted by the peer-reviewed literature. However, for some important problems clinicians seek guidance but insufficient research prevents establishing guidelines. For such cases, the GOC has created a carefully structured approach permitting a convened expert panel to develop such guidance. The foundation of this approach includes a systematic review of current literature and rigorously vetted, entrusted experts. Results Existing evidence, even if insufficient for a guideline, can be combined with a Delphi process for consensus achievement resulting in trustworthy consensus statements. This article provides a review of the CHEST methodologies for these guidance documents as well as the evidence-based guidelines. Conclusions These reliable statements of guidance for health-care providers and patients are based on a rigorous methodology and transparency of process.
Issues of financial and intellectual conflict of interest in clinical practice guidelines have raised increasing concern. Professional organizations have responded by more rigorous regulation of ...conflict of interest. Nevertheless, tension remains between the competing goals of optimizing guideline quality by using the experience and insight of experts and ensuring that financial and intellectual conflicts of interest do not influence recommendations. The executive committee of the American College of Chest Physicians' Antithrombotic Guidelines has developed a strategy comprising 3 innovative aspects to address this tension: First, place equal emphasis on intellectual and financial conflicts and provide explicit criteria for both; second, a methodologist without important conflicts of interest should have primary responsibility for each chapter; and third, experts with important financial or intellectual conflicts of interest can collect and interpret evidence, but only panel members without important conflicts can be involved in developing the recommendation for a specific question. These strategies may help to achieve the benefits of expert input without conflicts of interest influencing recommendations.
The Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines differs substantially from the prior versions both in ...process and in content. In this introduction, we describe some of the differences and the rationale for the changes.
To develop the Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (AT9), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) assembled a panel ...of clinical experts, information scientists, decision scientists, and systematic review and guideline methodologists.
Clinical areas were designated as articles, and a methodologist without important intellectual or financial conflicts of interest led a panel for each article. Only panel members without significant conflicts of interest participated in making recommendations. Panelists specified the population, intervention and alternative, and outcomes for each clinical question and defined criteria for eligible studies. Panelists and an independent evidence-based practice center executed systematic searches for relevant studies and evaluated the evidence, and where resources and evidence permitted, they created standardized tables that present the quality of the evidence and key results in a transparent fashion.
One or more recommendations relate to each specific clinical question, and each recommendation is clearly linked to the underlying body of evidence. Judgments regarding the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were based on approaches developed by the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Panel members constructed scenarios describing relevant health states and rated the disutility associated with these states based on an additional systematic review of evidence regarding patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy. These ratings guided value and preference decisions underlying the recommendations. Each topic panel identified questions in which resource allocation issues were particularly important and, for these issues, experts in economic analysis provided additional searches and guidance.
AT9 methodology reflects the current science of evidence-based clinical practice guideline development, with reliance on high-quality systematic reviews, a standardized process for quality assessment of individual studies and the body of evidence, an explicit process for translating the evidence into recommendations, disclosure of financial as well as intellectual conflicts of interest followed by management of disclosed conflicts, and extensive peer review.
Abstract Objective This study described the number and characteristics of questionnaires used to assess barriers of guideline use among physicians. Study Design and Setting A scoping review was ...conducted. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2005 to June 2016. English-language studies that administered a questionnaire to assess barriers of guideline use among practicing physicians were eligible. Summary statistics were used to report study and questionnaire characteristics. Questionnaire content was assessed with a checklist of 57 known barriers. Results Each of the 178 included studies administered a unique questionnaire. The number of questionnaires increased yearly from 2005 to 2015. Few were pilot-tested (50, 28.1%) or tested for psychometric properties (3, 1.7%). Two were based on theory. None probed for the full range of known barriers. Ten included a free-text option. The majority assessed professional barriers (177, 99.4%) but few of the 14 factors within this domain. Questionnaire characteristics did not change over time. Conclusion Organizations administered questionnaires that were not reliable or valid and did not comprehensively assess barriers and may have selected interventions unlikely to promote guideline use. Research is needed to construct a questionnaire that is practical, adaptable, and robust and leads to the selection of interventions that support guideline use.
Background The objective was to develop high-quality and comprehensive evidence-based guidelines on the diagnosis and management of lung cancer. Methods A carefully crafted panel of lung cancer ...experts, methodologists, and other specialists was assembled and reviewed for relevant conflicts of interest. The American College of Chest Physicians guideline methodology was used. Population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO)-based key questions and defined criteria for eligible studies were developed to inform the search strategies, subsequent evidence summaries, and recommendations. Research studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, where they existed, were assessed for quality and summarized to inform the recommendations. Results Each recommendation was developed with supporting evidence and the consensus of the writing committees. Controversial recommendations were identified for further consultation by the entire panel, with anonymous voting to achieve consensus. Conclusions The final recommendations can be trusted by health-care providers, patients, and other stakeholders since they are based on the current evidence in these areas and were developed with trustworthy processes for guideline development.
Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EBGs) can provide an invaluable distillation of knowledge regarding best practices based on the available evidence. EBGs, providing accurate and useful ...guidance to best clinical practices, require a rigorous development process. The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) has developed a process that embodies transparency, thoroughness, and timeliness, and effective conflict-of-interest management, and it continues to evolve. This process employs a quantitative and rigorous grading of the strength of recommendations and of the quality of evidence that incorporates sensitivity to health-care resource utilization and patient values and preferences. A review of this process is provided to inform the ACCP membership and those wishing to embark on EBG development.
Background To develop the Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (AT9), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) ...assembled a panel of clinical experts, information scientists, decision scientists, and systematic review and guideline methodologists. Methods Clinical areas were designated as articles, and a methodologist without important intellectual or financial conflicts of interest led a panel for each article. Only panel members without significant conflicts of interest participated in making recommendations. Panelists specified the population, intervention and alternative, and outcomes for each clinical question and defined criteria for eligible studies. Panelists and an independent evidence-based practice center executed systematic searches for relevant studies and evaluated the evidence, and where resources and evidence permitted, they created standardized tables that present the quality of the evidence and key results in a transparent fashion. Results One or more recommendations relate to each specific clinical question, and each recommendation is clearly linked to the underlying body of evidence. Judgments regarding the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were based on approaches developed by the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Panel members constructed scenarios describing relevant health states and rated the disutility associated with these states based on an additional systematic review of evidence regarding patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy. These ratings guided value and preference decisions underlying the recommendations. Each topic panel identified questions in which resource allocation issues were particularly important and, for these issues, experts in economic analysis provided additional searches and guidance. Conclusions AT9 methodology reflects the current science of evidence-based clinical practice guideline development, with reliance on high-quality systematic reviews, a standardized process for quality assessment of individual studies and the body of evidence, an explicit process for translating the evidence into recommendations, disclosure of financial as well as intellectual conflicts of interest followed by management of disclosed conflicts, and extensive peer review.
PDF
