Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Updated clinical guidelines experience major reporting limitations

Implementation Science201712:120

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0651-3

Received: 2 June 2017

Accepted: 3 October 2017

Published: 12 October 2017

Abstract

Background

The Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp) was recently developed. However, so far, no systematic assessment of the reporting of updated clinical guidelines (CGs) exists. We aimed to examine (1) the completeness of reporting the updating process in CGs and (2) the inter-observer reliability of CheckUp.

Methods

We conducted a systematic assessment of the reporting of the updating process in a sample of updated CGs using CheckUp. We performed a systematic search to identify updated CGs published in 2015, developed by a professional society, reporting a systematic review of the evidence, and containing at least one recommendation. Three reviewers independently assessed the CGs with CheckUp (16 items). We calculated the median score per item, per domain, and overall, converting scores to a 10-point scale. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences according to country, type of organisation, scope, and health topic of updated CGs. We calculated the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for domains and overall score.

Results

We included in total 60 updated CGs. The median domain score on a 10-point scale for presentation was 5.8 (range 1.7 to 10), for editorial independence 8.3 (range 3.3 to 10), and for methodology 5.7 (range 0 to 10). The median overall score on a 10-point scale was 6.3 (range 3.1 to 10). Presentation and justification items at recommendation level (respectively reported by 27 and 38% of the CGs) and the methods used for the external review and implementing changes in practice were particularly poorly reported (both reported by 38% of the CGs). CGs developed by a European or international institution obtained a statistically significant higher overall score compared to North American or Asian institutions (p = 0.014). Finally, the agreement among the reviewers on the overall score was excellent (ICC 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95).

Conclusions

The reporting of updated CGs varies considerably with significant room for improvement. We recommend using CheckUp to assess the updating process in updated CGs and as a blueprint to inform methods and reporting strategies in updating.

Keywords

Checklist/standards Guideline [publication type] Publishing/standards

Background

Clinical guidelines (CGs) are defined as ‘statements that include recommendations intended to optimise patient care, that are informed by systematic reviews of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options’ [1]. Scientific knowledge is in constant evolution [2, 3]; therefore, surveillance of the new evidence is required to ensure the trustworthiness of clinical guidelines (CGs) [48].

Updating CGs is an iterative process with a systematic and explicit methodology that involves identifying and reviewing new evidence not included in the original version of a CG [9]. The fundamental stages of the updating process are (1) prioritising of CGs and clinical questions [10, 11], (2) identifying of new evidence [8, 12, 13], (3) assessing the impact of the new evidence and decision to update [4, 8], (4) reviewing and—if necessary—modifying the recommendations [1416], and (5) reporting updated recommendations [17]. Currently, there is no consensus about the optimal methodology to maintain CGs up-to-date [11, 18, 19].

The reporting of updated CGs is a process within an updating strategy that communicates users about the methods and changes in an updated CG [9]. So far, there is limited guidance on the reporting of the updating process [19]. To address this gap, we recently developed the Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp) [20]. The aim of CheckUp is to evaluate the completeness of reporting in updated CGs [20]. CheckUp can be used (1) to inform about strategies for updating CGs and their reporting requirements (CG developers), (2) to assess the reporting of updated CGs (interested CG users), and (3) to complete as a publication requirement of updated CGs (editors of scientific journals that publish CGs) [20]. Although CheckUp has been already included in some methodological handbooks and methodological studies [21, 22], it has not been yet formally implemented.

To our knowledge, updated CGs have not been systematically reviewed to assess the completeness of reporting the updating process. An overview of the current status could be informative for the CG community. Therefore, the objectives of our study were (1) to assess the completeness of reporting the updating process of updated CGs using CheckUp and (2) to explore the inter-observer reliability of CheckUp.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a systematic assessment of the reporting of the updating process in a sample of updated CGs using CheckUp. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline to the extent it was applicable to our study [23].

Information sources and search strategy

We searched in MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), the G-I-N library (http://www.g-i-n.net), and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC) (https://www.guidelines.gov) in August 2016 for updated CGs published during 2015. The search strategy can be found in Additional file 1.

Inclusion criteria

We included all updated CGs published in 2015 (as the most recent year prior to publication of CheckUp) which met the following criteria: (1) developed by a professional society, (2) search strategy using at least one bibliographic database, (3) reporting at least one recommendation, (4) updated version of a previous version of the same CG (including a reference to a previous version of the CG), and (5) published in English.

Study selection

Two reviewers (RV, IDF, LHA, or MHFP) independently screened the titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible references. We obtained the full-text articles of the potentially eligible references for further assessment. Disagreements were solved by consensus and, if necessary, with the help of a third reviewer (LMG).

Data extraction

CheckUp is a checklist consisting of 16 items that examine the reporting of the updating process in updated CGs [20]. CheckUp consists of three domains: (1) presentation of the updated CG (6 items), (2) editorial independence (3 items), and (3) the methodology of the updating process (7 items).

Three reviewers (RV, IDF, LHA, or MHFP) independently evaluated each CG with CheckUp, and whenever the included CGs referred to supplemental documents (e.g. methodological manuals or appendices), these documents were reviewed for additional information.

Furthermore, we collected the following information regarding: (1) the institution that updated the CG (name, country, and type of organisation), (2) the scope of the updated CG (diagnosis, management, prevention, screening, or treatment), and (3) the health topic of the updated CG.

Data analysis

We calculated summary statistics to provide quantitative information about the institution that updated CGs and CheckUp scores. We calculated item scores (absolute frequencies and proportions) by summing up the updated CGs that reported each item. We calculated domain scores (median and range) by summing up all scores of the individual items for each domain: presentation of the updated CG (6 items), editorial independence (3 items), and the methodology of the updating process (7 items). Additionally, we calculated the overall score (median and range) by summing up all scores of the individual items. Both domain scores and total scores were converted to a 10-point scale.

To identify potential predictors, we used multiple linear regression to test whether the overall score (dependent variable) differed between CG institution’s country, type of organisation, objective of the CG, and CG topic (independent variables).

We calculated the intraclass coefficient (ICC) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) as an indicator of the overall agreement between the three reviewers for each item. According to the scale proposed by Landis and Koch, the degree of agreement between 0.00 and 0.20 was considered poor, from 0.21 to 0.40 fair, from 0.41 to 0.60 moderate, from 0.61 to 0.80 substantial, and from 0.81 to 1.00 almost perfect [24].

We accepted p values of less than 0.05 as significant. We performed the analyses using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Selection of updated clinical guidelines

The screening process is summarised in a flow diagram (Fig. 1). We initially identified 1465 references and excluded 1249 references after examining their titles and abstracts. We reviewed 216 full-text articles and excluded 156 references (Additional file 2). Finally, we included 60 updated CGs [2584].
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the screening process

Characteristics of included clinical guidelines

Most institutions responsible for updating the CGs were North American (61.7%; 37/60) and scientific/professional societies (46.7%; 28/60) or public institutions (43.3%; 26/60) (Table 1). In total, 25 (41.7%; 25/60) of the included CGs addressed the management of a specific disease. Other CGs address solely the treatment (25.0%; 15/60), screening (15.0%; 9/60), diagnosis (11.7%; 7/60), or prevention (6.7%; 4/60) of a healthcare problem. The clinical area of the included CGs varied widely, with oncology (26.7%; 16/60) the most common.
Table 1

Characteristics of the updated clinical guidelines

 

n (%)

Institution

Country

− North America

37 (61.7)

− Europe

17 (28.3)

− Asia

4 (6.7)

− International

2 (3.3)

Type of organisation

− Scientific/professional society

28 (46.7)

− Public institution

26 (43.3)

− Other (Federal institute, NGO)

6 (10.0)

Updated clinical guidelines

Scope

− Management

25 (41.7)

− Treatment

15 (25.0)

− Screening

9 (15.0)

− Diagnosis

7 (11.7)

− Prevention

4 (6.7)

Health topic

− Oncology

16 (26.7)

− Public health

5 (8.3)

− Internal medicine

3 (5.0)

− Mental health

3 (5.0)

− Others

33 (55.0)

Domain scores

Presentation of the updated CG

All of the included updated CGs could be distinguished from their predecessors since this was one of the eligibility criteria. The included CGs often used the term ‘update’, ‘version’, or the year of publication (i.e. 2015) in their title (Table 2, Fig. 2).
Table 2

Item scores

 

Updated CGs reporting each item n (%)

Presentation of the updated clinical guideline

 Item 1: The updated version can be distinguished from the previous version of the clinical guideline.

60 (100)

 Item 2: The rationale for updating the clinical guideline is reported.

37 (61.7)

 Item 3: Changes in the scope and purpose between the update and the previous version are described and justified.

34 (56.7)

 Item 4: The sections reviewed in the updating process are described.

40 (66.7)

 Item 5: Recommendations are clearly presented and labelled as new, modified, or not changed. Deleted recommendations are clearly noted.

16 (26.7)

 Item 6: Changes in recommendations are reported and justified.

23 (38.3)

Editorial independence

 Item 7: The panel participants in the updated version are described.

57 (95.0)

 Item 8: Disclosures of interest of the group responsible for the updated version are recorded.

58 (96.7)

 Item 9: The role of the funding body for the updated version is identified and described.

30 (50.0)

Methodology of the updating process

 Item 10: The methods used for searching and identifying new evidence in the updating process are described.

49 (81.7)

 Item 11: The methods used for evidence selection in the updating process are described.

47 (78.3)

 Item 12: The methods used to assess the quality of the included evidence in the updating process are described.

46 (76.7)

 Item 13: The methods used for evidence synthesis in the updating process are described.

28 (46.7)

 Item 14: The methods used for external review of the updated version are described.

23 (38.3)

 Item 15: The methods and plan for implementing the changes of the updated version in practice are described.

23 (38.3)

 Item 16: The plan and methods for updating the new version in the future are reported.

24 (40.0)

One guideline is rated as not applicable

Fig. 2

Reporting examples of the included updated CGs

More than half of the updated CGs included the rationale for updating (61.7%; 37/60), described changes in the scope and purpose between the updated CG and its predecessor (56.7%; 34/60), and reported the reviewed sections (66.7%; 40/60) (Table 2, Fig. 2).

At the recommendation level, 26.7% (16/60) of the included CGs clearly labelled the recommendations as new, modified, or not changed, and 38.3% (23/60) justified the changes. The justifications for changes commonly included a description of the new evidence that triggered the change in the recommendation and the changes between the new and old version of the recommendations (Table 2, Fig. 2).

The median score of the presentation domain on a 10-point scale was 5.8 (range 1.7 to 10), and the agreement among the three reviewers was adequate (ICC 0.854; 95% CI 0.701 to 0.941) (Table 3).
Table 3

Domains, overall, and agreement scores

 

Scorea

median (range)

Agreement

ICC (95% CI)

Domain

− Presentation of the updated CG

5.8 (1.7–10)

0.854 (0.701–0.941)

− Editorial independence

8.3 (3.3–10)

0.724 (0.534–0.860)

− Methodology of the updating process

5.7 (0–10)

0.886 (0.771–0.952)

Overall

6.3 (3.1–10)

0.880 (0.749–0.952)

a10-point scale (10 as the best possible score)

ICC intraclass coefficient, CI confidence interval

Editorial independence

Almost all included CGs described the panel participants in the updated version (95.0%; 57/60) and their respective conflicts of interest (96.7%; 58/60) (Table 2, Fig. 2). However, half of the updated CGs did not report the entity and/or the role of the funding body that financed the updated version (50.0%; 30/60).

The median score of the editorial independence domain on a 10-point scale was 8.3 (range 3.3 to 10), and the agreement among the three reviewers was adequate (ICC 0.724; 95% CI 0.534 to 0.860) (Table 3).

Methodology of the updating process

Most of the included CGs reported the methods used for searching and identifying new evidence (81.7%; 49/60), selecting the evidence (78.3%; 47/60), and assessing the quality of the included evidence (76.7%; 46/60) (Table 2, Fig. 2). However, the methods for synthesising the evidence (46.7%; 28/60), external review (38.3%; 23/60), implementing the changes of the updated version in practice (38.3%; 23/60), or updating the new version (40.0%; 24/60) were reported less often in the included CGs.

The median score of the methodology domain on a 10-point scale was 5.7 (range 0 to 10), and the agreement among the three reviewers was adequate (ICC 0.886; 95% CI 0.771 to 0.952) (Table 3).

Overall score

The median overall score on a 10-point scale was 6.3 (range 3.1 to 10), and the agreement among the three reviewers was adequate (ICC 0.880; 95% CI 0.749 to 0.952) (Table 3).

CGs developed by a European or International institution obtained a higher overall score compared to North American or Asian institutions (p = 0.014) (Table 4). No significant differences in the overall score were found between CG differing in the type of organisation, scope, or topic.
Table 4

Overall scores stratified by characteristics of the updated clinical guidelines

 

Overall scorea

median (range)

p value

Institution

Country

− Europe

8.1 (4.4–10.0)

0.014

− International

7.8 (6.9–8.8)

− Asia

5.6 (3.8–6.3)

− North America

5.6 (3.1–8.1)

Type of organisation

− Public institution

6.3 (3.1–10.0)

0.617

− Scientific/professional society

6.3 (3.1–8.8)

− Other (Federal institute, NGO)

4.4 (3.8–8.1)

Updated clinical guidelines

Scope

− Diagnosis

8.1 (5.0–9.4)

0.097

− Prevention

5.6 (4.4–6.3)

− Management

6.3 (3.1–10.0)

− Treatment

6.3 (4.4–8.8)

− Screening

3.8 (3.1–8.1)

Health topic

− Mental health

6.9 (5.0–8.1)

0.099

− Oncology

6.3 (3.8–9.4)

− Internal medicine

6.3 (5.6–8.1)

− Public health

3.8 (3.1–3.8)

− Others

6.3 (3.1–10.0)

a10-point scale (10 as the best possible score)

Discussion

Main findings

Our study is the first systematic assessment of the reporting of the updating process in updated CGs using CheckUp. The presentation and methodology domains were reported less completely than the editorial independence domain. Particularly, the items regarding the presentation and justification of the updating process at recommendation level and the methods used for evidence synthesis, external review, implementing, and future updating were poorly reported. Both the domains and overall scores of the included CGs were highly variable. We identified only two (3.3%) CGs with a perfect score (10-point overall score 10) [60, 74].

We observed an adequate ICC reliability between the three reviewers. The lowest ICC was found for the editorial independence domain, but the ICC domain score was still considered adequate. This was mainly due to some CGs that reported the panel participants and their conflicts of interest for those that were responsible for updating the CG; however, they failed to report the same information for those who were responsible for developing the preceding CG.

Our results in the context of previous research

Presentation of updated CGs

Previous research showed that there was no clear improvement in the reporting or methodological quality after updating systematic reviews [85]. Similarly, Hasenfield et al. found that updated CGs were of worse methodological quality compared to their previous version [86]. Few studies have evaluated the optimal presentation formats of CGs in general [87, 88]. Similarly, regarding the updating process of CGs, a wide variability in the formats used to present updated recommendations has been reported by our group [17]. In the field of systematic reviews, Newberry et al. [89] evaluated different formats for presenting the results of updated systematic reviews. One of their conclusions was that different interest groups have different information needs. For example, health managers preferred to have access to all data and the analysis of a systematic review (the original and the updated), whereas clinicians prefer a synthesis that clearly shows what has been changed [89].

In our study, we have identified that, in particular, the presentation of updated recommendations is not optimal, with recommendations often not presented or not clearly labelled as new, modified, or not changed. This might confuse readers who might not be able to identify which recommendations are updated and which ones remain identical. Additionally, the modifications conducted in recommendations are often not described nor justified.

Reporting the editorial independence

The same principle regarding editorial independence for developing new CGs should be applied to the updating process [90]. Previous studies, in which the quality of CGs was reviewed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, have observed low scores in the domain of editorial independence [91, 92]. We found similar results for the source of funding. However, most of the included updated CGs in our study reported the panel members and their conflicts of interest.

Reporting the methodology of the updating process

Until now, most of the methodological research regarding the updating process of CGs concerned the identification and assessment of new evidence (described commonly as the surveillance process) [18]. However, the complete updating process, including the presentation and justification of the updating process at recommendation level, has received less attention. CG developers possibly assume that the complete updating process is equal to the development process of the initial CG [19]. This could explain why the items that have a certain overlap with the development process (i.e. search strategy, evidence selection, and quality assessment) have higher scores compared to the updating items that are methodologically different from the development process (i.e. synthesis, external review, implementation of changes, and updating in the future) of the initial CG. Although the methods for developing CGs evolve rapidly [93], the updating process still does not follow this progress correspondingly [18, 19, 94, 95].

When updating CGs, developers need to pay special attention to the implementation implications of the changes introduced in updated CGs [96]. This can be done by exploring facilitators and barriers, by developing supporting materials, or by providing audit criteria [97]. Recently, GRADE has published Evidence to Decision frameworks to support developers to systematically consider this aspect and other criteria [98]. As living CGs become more common practice [99], developers will need to assess to what extent more frequent changes in recommendations impact their implementability and optimisation of patient care.

Strengths and limitations

Our study has several strengths. We followed a rigorous and transparent approach and developed a protocol that is available from the authors on request. Additionally, three reviewers independently conducted the assessment of the included CGs and adequate agreement was found.

Our study has some limitations. It is possible that we did not identify all updated CGs that would meet our inclusion criteria due to suboptimal indexing of CGs in biomedical databases, which may limit the representativeness of the results. Additionally, one eligibility criterion was also an item from the checklist, which might have led to the inclusion of more high-quality updated CGs. Consequently, our results might be an overestimate, and the actual reporting be actually worse than our findings.

Implications for practice and research

When CG developers are interested in updating CGs, we suggest firstly assessing the quality of CGs using the AGREE II instrument. After that, we suggest to (1) prioritise the update of high-quality CGs or (2) improve the methodological quality of the CG during the updating process. After the updating process, CG developers can assess the reporting of the updating process using CheckUp. Consequently, when both the AGREE II and CheckUp instruments are properly applied, developers will have a complete and detailed overview of the quality of the developing and updating processes. Afterwards, if applicable, the prioritisation process of updating CGs can be conducted [11].

There is currently no gold standard for updating CGs [18, 19, 94, 95]. Although CheckUp does not evaluate the quality of the updating process, CG developers can use it to inform their updating processes. Additionally, CheckUp can be used by interested CG users to assess whether updated CGs are in alignment with the CheckUp items, and editors of scientific journals that publish updated CGs may request the completion of CheckUp from the CG authors [20].

It would be relevant to monitor the use and the impact of CheckUp in the updating CG field over the next few years, potentially using this study as a baseline evaluation before the publication of CheckUp. Finally, we invite users to comment on the items and the usability of CheckUp contacting the corresponding author of this publication.

We suggest users of CheckUp to assess the reporting of the updating process in updated CGs by at least three calibrate reviewers. We involved three reviewers for convenience to avoid ties. Further examinations of CheckUp are required to determine if the inter-observer agreement between two reviewers would be adequate. Clinical expertise regarding the clinical area of the CG is not required; however, methodological comprehension on the updating process of CGs is highly desirable. To facilitate understanding of the domain scores and overall scores, we have transformed the domain and overall scores to a 10-point scale score.

Conclusions

The reporting of the updating process in updated CGs is suboptimal. Presentation of updated CGs and the methodology of the updating process where areas where more work is needed. We advise CG developers to use CheckUp to improve the reporting of updated CGs. CheckUp can also be used to assess the updating process in updated CGs and as a blueprint that could be used to inform specific updating methods and reporting strategies.

Abbreviations

AGREE: 

Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation

CG: 

Clinical guideline

CheckUp: 

Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines

CI: 

Confidence interval

G-I-N: 

Guidelines International Network

ICC: 

Interclass Correlations Coefficient

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Robin W. M. Vernooij is a doctoral candidate at the Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Preventive Medicine Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding

This project is funded by research grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the project ‘PI14/02006’ (co-funded by European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund ‘Investing in your future’). LMG is funded by a Juan Rodés contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (JR15/00004). PAC is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation of data, and writing the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

RV, LM, MB, and PA-C contributed to conceiving the study. All authors designed the study. RV conducted the searches. RV, IDF, LHA, and MHFP contributed to screening and extracting the data. RV, LM, and PA-C contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors contributed to commenting and editing of review drafts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)
(2)
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact; McMaster University
(3)
Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia
(4)
University Medical Center Utrecht
(5)
Department of Oncology, McMaster University
(6)
CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP)

References

  1. Laine C, Taichman DB, Mulrow C. Trustworthy clinical guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(11):774–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Martínez García L, Sanabria AJ, García Alvarez E, Trujillo-Martín MM, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Kotzeva A, et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ. 2014;186(16):1211–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Alderson LJ, Alderson P, Tan T. Median life span of a cohort of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines was about 60 months. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):52–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Neuman MD, Goldstein JN, Cirullo MA, Schwartz JS. Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations. JAMA. 2014;311(20):2092–100.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Lyratzopoulos G, Barnes S, Stegenga H, Peden S, Campbell B. Updating clinical practice recommendations: is it worthwhile and when? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):29–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, Morton SC, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA. 2001;286(12):1461–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Martínez García L, Pardo-Hernandez H, McFarlane E, Sanabria AJ, Sparrow K, Alonso-Coello P, the G-I-N updating guidelines working group OBO. UpGlossary: Guidance on terminology and definitions for updating clinical guidelines. Cape Town: Global Evidence Summit 2017.Google Scholar
  10. Agbassi C, Messersmith H, McNair S, Brouwers M. Priority-based initiative for updating existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: the results of two iterations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1335–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Martínez García L, Pardo H, Superchi C, Niño de Guzman E, Ballesteros M, Ibargoyen Roteta N, et al. Updating health decision-making tools: a systematic review of prioritisation processes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:11–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Martinez Garcia L, Sanabria AJ, Araya I, Lawson J, Solà I, Vernooij RW, et al. Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gartlehner G, West SL, Lohr KN, Kahwati L, Johnson JG, Harris RP, et al. Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(5):399–406.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston ME, Brouwers MC, Browman GP. Keeping cancer guidelines current: results of a comprehensive prospective literature monitoring strategy for twenty clinical practice guidelines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19(4):646–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Eccles M, Rousseau N, Freemantle N. Updating evidence-based clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(2):98–103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Parmelli E, Papini D, Moja L, Bandieri E, Belfiglio M, Ciccone G, et al. Updating clinical recommendations for breast, colorectal and lung cancer treatments: an opportunity to improve methodology and clinical relevance. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(1):188–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Martinez Garcia L, McFarlane E, Barnes S, Sanabria AJ, Alonso-Coello P, Alderson P. Updated recommendations: an assessment of NICE clinical guidelines. Implement Sci. 2014;9:72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinez Garcia L, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Sola I, Haynes RB, Vandvik PO, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 7:109.Google Scholar
  19. Vernooij RW, Sanabria AJ, Sola I, Alonso-Coello P, Martínez GL. Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks. Implement Sci. 2014;9:3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Vernooij RW, Alonso-Coello P, Brouwers M, CheckUp Panel. Reporting items for updated clinical guidelines: checklist for the reporting of updated guidelines (CheckUp). PLoS medicine. 2017;14: e1002207.Google Scholar
  21. Grupo de trabajo para la actualización del Manual de Elaboración de GPC. Elaboración de Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Actualización del Manual Metodológico. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad - GuíaSalud; 2016.Google Scholar
  22. Eady EA, Layton AM, Sprakel J, BWM A, Fedorowicz Z, van Zuuren EJ. AGREE II assessments of recent acne treatment guidelines: how well do they reveal trustworthiness as defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria? Br J Dermatol. 2017. doi:10.1111/bjd.15777.
  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine/American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea and snoring with oral appliance therapy: an update for 2015:2015.Google Scholar
  26. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on the treatment of pediatric diaphyseal femur fracture; 2015.Google Scholar
  27. American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis; 2015.Google Scholar
  28. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of intrinsic circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders: advanced sleep-wake phase disorder (ASWPD), delayed sleep-wake phase disorder (DSWPD), non-24-hour sleep-wake rhythm disorder (N24SWD), and irregular sleep-wake rhythm disorder (ISWRD). An update for 2015; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society; 2015.Google Scholar
  30. American College of Chest Physicians. Somatic cough syndrome (previously referred to as psychogenic cough) and tic cough (previously referred to as habit cough) in adults and children: CHEST guideline and Expert Panel report; 2015.Google Scholar
  31. American College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy: use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for the management of acute ischemic stroke in the emergency department; 2015.Google Scholar
  32. American Dental Association. The use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with prosthetic joints: evidence-based clinical practice guideline for dental practitioners—a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs; 2015.Google Scholar
  33. American Geriatrics Society. American Geriatrics Society 2015 updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults; 2015.Google Scholar
  34. Stav W. Occupational therapy Occupational therapy practice guidelines for driving and community mobility for older adults. Bethesda (MD)Ñ American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA); 2015.Google Scholar
  35. American Psychiatric Association. Practice guidelines for the psychiatric evaluation of adults, third edition; 2015.Google Scholar
  36. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for perioperative blood management: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Management; 2015.Google Scholar
  37. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice advisory on anesthetic care for magnetic resonance imaging: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Anesthetic Care for Magnetic Resonance Imaging; 2015.Google Scholar
  38. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update; 2015.Google Scholar
  39. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update; 2015.Google Scholar
  40. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on systemic therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline; 2015.Google Scholar
  41. Raghu G, Rochwerg B, Zhang Y, Garcia CA, AzumaA BJ, et al. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline: treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An update of the 2011 clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(2):e3–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. American Urological Association. Castration-resistant prostate cancer: AUA guideline; 2015.Google Scholar
  43. Atkins DL, Berger S, Duff JP, Gonzales JC, Hunt EA, Joyner BL, et al. Part 11: pediatric basic life support and cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care (reprint). Circulation. 2015;132(18 Suppl 2):S519–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Black A, Guilbert E, Co Authors, Costescu D, Dunn S, Fisher W, et al. Canadian contraception consensus (part 2 of 4). J Obstet Gyneacol Can 2015;37(11):1033-1039.Google Scholar
  45. Black A, Guilbert E, Co Authors, Costescu D, Dunn S, Fisher W, et al. Canadian contraception consensus (part 1 of 4). J Obstet Gyneacol Can. 2015;37(10):936-942.Google Scholar
  46. British HIV Association. British HIV Association guidelines for the treatment of HIV-1-positive adults with antiretroviral therapy 2015; 2015.Google Scholar
  47. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations for prevention of weight gain and use of behavioural and pharmacological interventions to manage overweight and obesity in adults in primary care; 2015.Google Scholar
  48. CancerControl Alberta. Systemic therapy for well and moderately differentiated unresectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours; 2015.Google Scholar
  49. CancerControl Alberta. Systemic therapy for unresectable stage III or metastatic cutaneous melanoma; 2015.Google Scholar
  50. CancerControl Alberta. Merkel cell carcinoma; 2015.Google Scholar
  51. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. What are the recommended clinical assessment and screening tests during pregnancy?; 2015.Google Scholar
  52. Department of Defense/Department of Veterans Affairs. VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for the management of substance use disorders; 2015.Google Scholar
  53. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Evaluation and management of blunt traumatic aortic injury: a practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma; 2015.Google Scholar
  54. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Tuberculosis (CG117); 2015.Google Scholar
  55. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diabetes in pregnancy (CG63); 2015.Google Scholar
  56. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diabetes in children and young people (CG); 2015.Google Scholar
  57. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 1 diabetes (CG15); 2015.Google Scholar
  58. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Referral for suspected cancer (CG27); 2015.Google Scholar
  59. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Coeliac disease (CG86); 2015.Google Scholar
  60. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 2 diabetes: the management of type 2 diabetes (update) (CG66); 2015.Google Scholar
  61. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 2 diabetes—footcare (CG10); 2015.Google Scholar
  62. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Violence (CG25); 2015.Google Scholar
  63. Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for iron deficiency anemia and iron supplementation in pregnant women to improve maternal health and birth outcomes: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(7):529–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for iron deficiency anemia in young children: USPSTF recommendation statement. Pediatrics. 2015;136(4):746–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for abnormal blood glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(11):861–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(10):778–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(8):622–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS). Management of cervical cancer (second edition); 2015.Google Scholar
  69. Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS). Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (5th edition); 2015.Google Scholar
  70. Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS). Management of dengue infection in adults (third edition); 2015.Google Scholar
  71. Miyazaki M, Yoshitomi H, Miyakawa S, Uesaka K, Unno M, Endo I, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers 2015: the 2nd English edition. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22(4):249–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. National Clinical Guideline Centre. Anaemia management in people with chronic kidney disease; 2015.Google Scholar
  73. National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care. Irritable bowel syndrome in adults: diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome in primary care; 2015.Google Scholar
  74. National Collaborating Centre for Women. Diabetes (type 1 and type 2) in children and young people: diagnosis and management; 2015.Google Scholar
  75. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prophylaxis against infective endocarditis: antimicrobial prophylaxis against infective endocarditis in adults and children undergoing interventional procedures; 2015.Google Scholar
  76. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for hemodialysis adequacy: 2015 update; 2015.Google Scholar
  77. Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Diagnosis and management of epilepsy in adults (SIGN CPG 143); 2015.Google Scholar
  78. Lyman GH, Bohlke K, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Lee AY, Arcelus JI, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline update 2014. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):654–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Hesketh PJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH, Basch E, Chesney M, Clark-Snow RA, et al. Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology focused guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(4):381–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Hwang JP, Somerfield MR, De A-J, Cryer DR, Feld JJ, Kramer BS, et al. Hepatitis B virus screening for patients with cancer before therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion update. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(19):2212–20.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Allegra CJ, Rumble RB, Hamilton SR, Mangu PB, Roach N, Hantel A, et al. Extended RAS gene mutation testing in metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion update 2015. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(2):179–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Park IU, Introcaso C, Dunne EF. Human papillomavirus and genital warts: a review of the evidence for the 2015 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(Suppl 8):S849–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Prica A, Baldassarre F, Hicks LK, Imrie K, Kouroukis TC, Cheung M, et al. Rituximab in lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a clinical practice guideline, version 3; 2015.Google Scholar
  84. Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. Person- and family-centred care; 2015.Google Scholar
  85. Shea B, Boers M, Grimshaw JM, Hamel C, Bouter LM. Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:27.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  86. Hasenfeld R, Shekelle PG. Is the methodological quality of guidelines declining in the US? Comparison of the quality of US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines with those published subsequently. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(6):428–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  87. Brandt L, Vandvik PO, Alonso-Coello P, Akl EA, Thornton J, Rigua D, et al. Multilayered and digitally structured presentation formats of trustworthy recommendations: a combined survey and randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e011569.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Kastner M, Bhattacharyya O, Hayden L, Makarski J, Estey E, Durocher L, et al. Guideline uptake is influenced by six implementability domains for creating and communicating guidelines: a realist review, 498. J Clin Epidemiol. 68(5):–509.Google Scholar
  89. Newberry SJ, Shekelle PG, Vaiana M, Motala A. Reporting the findings of updated systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness: how do users want to view new information? Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.Google Scholar
  90. Schunemann HJ, Al-Ansary LA, Forland F, Kersten S, Komulainen J, Kopp IB, et al. Guidelines international network: principles for disclosure of interests and management of conflicts in guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(7):548–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Armstrong JJ, Goldfarb AM, Instrum RS, MacDermid JC. Improvement evident but still necessary in clinical practice guideline quality: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:13–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Alonso-Coello P, Irfan A, Sola I, Gich I, Delgado-Noguera M, Rigau D, et al. The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guideline appraisal studies. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(6):e58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Murad MH. Clinical practice guidelines: a primer on development and dissemination. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92(3):423–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Alonso-Coello P, Martinez Garcia L, Carrasco JM, Solà I, Qureshi S, Burgers JS, et al. The updating of clinical practice guidelines: insights from an international survey. Implement Sci. 2011;6:107.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Becker M, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Partial updating of clinical practice guidelines often makes more sense than full updating: a systematic review on methods and the development of an updating procedure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):33–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual [internet]. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; 2015.Google Scholar
  97. Chan WV, Pearson TA, Bennett GC, Cushman WC, Gaziano TA, Gorman PN, et al. ACC/AHA special report: clinical practice guideline implementation strategies: a summary of systematic reviews by the NHLBI implementation science work group: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(8):1076–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, et al. GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;i2089:353.Google Scholar
  99. Martínez García L, Pardo-Hernandez H, Sanabria A, Alonso-Coello P, Pregnancy Clinical Guideline Updating Working Group. Continuous surveillance of a pregnancy clinical guideline: an early experience. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6:143.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement