[Dying during the pandemic: Experiences of relatives of patients who died during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile]. / Morir en pandemia: Experiencias de familiares de pacientes fallecidos durante la pandemia COVID-19 en Chile.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic marked a milestone in the history of medicine worldwide. Together with the humanitarian drama it represented, the problems that arose are promoting lines of research in multiple fields. One of these fields is the aspects related to medical communication and end-of-life care. This paper reports the experiences and perceptions of relatives of patients who died during the pandemic with a psychospiritual support intervention in a public hospital in the Metropolitan Region, Chile, called "farewell". METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted with a phenomenological approach based on in-depth interviews. From this, categories were derived that allowed a systematization of the observation of the experiences. RESULTS: Among the results, the impact of the circumstances and the communication provided by the medical team on grief should be highlighted. The use of the word "farewell" emerges as a useful, albeit ambiguous, communicative tool when it comes to adequately framing an end-of-life process. CONCLUSIONS: It is argued that the end of life is an area that requires physical and psychospiritual spaces, and adequate training at all levels to do justice to a highly relevant moment in the care of people.

Adaptation of WHO COVID-19 guidelines by Caribbean countries and territories.

The normative role of the World Health Organization (WHO) involves creating evidence-based, principled guidelines to guide its Member States in making well-informed public health decisions. While these guidelines often need to be adapted to ensure contextual relevance, foster better implementation and adherence, adapting existing guidelines is more efficient than creating new ones. Here we describe the adaptation of the WHO coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) living guideline on pharmacological interventions for the Caribbean using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT method. The Caribbean Public Health Agency and the Pan American Health Organization led the effort, assembling a diverse panel of 16 experts from seven Caribbean countries and territories. The adaptation process, involving 15 steps, was guided by an experienced methodologist and included selecting relevant clinical questions and prioritizing them based on regional needs. The panel evaluated the latest WHO guidelines and integrated additional local data. They adjusted the direction and strength of several recommendations to better fit the Caribbean context, considering local values and preferences, resources, accessibility, feasibility and impact on health equity. Ultimately, we changed the direction of two recommendations and the strength of five, tailoring them to regional realities. This effort highlights the importance of adapting global guidelines to local settings, improving their applicability and effectiveness. The adaptation process also serves as a valuable opportunity for skill transfer and capacity-building in guideline development. Continued research is needed to assess the impact of these adaptations on health-care outcomes in the Caribbean.

Le rôle normatif de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) consiste à élaborer des lignes directrices fondées sur des données scientifiques et sur des principes afin d'aider ses États membres à prendre des décisions éclairées en matière de santé publique. Bien qu'elles nécessitent souvent des adaptations pour garantir leur pertinence par rapport à des contextes précis et pour favoriser une meilleure mise en œuvre et adhésion, il est plus efficace d'adapter les lignes directrices existantes que d'en créer de nouvelles. La présente publication décrit l'adaptation de la ligne directrice évolutive de l'OMS sur les interventions pharmacologiques dans le cadre de la maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19) pour les Caraïbes en appliquant la méthodologie GRADE (classement des recommandations, de l'appréciation, du développement et de l'évaluation)-ADOLOPMENT. L'Agence de santé publique des Caraïbes et l'Organisation panaméricaine de la Santé ont dirigé les travaux en réunissant un groupe diversifié de 16 experts issus de sept pays et territoires des Caraïbes. Le processus d'adaptation, comptant 15 étapes et encadré par un méthodologiste expérimenté, a consisté à sélectionner des questions cliniques pertinentes et à les classer par ordre de priorité selon les besoins régionaux. Ce groupe a évalué les dernières lignes directrices de l'OMS et a intégré des données locales supplémentaires. Il a ensuite ajusté l'orientation et le poids de plusieurs recommandations afin de mieux les adapter au contexte des Caraïbes, en tenant compte des valeurs et des préférences locales, des ressources, de l'accessibilité, de la faisabilité et de l'impact sur l'équité en matière de santé. En fin de compte, l'orientation de deux recommandations et le poids de cinq autres ont été modifiés, en les adaptant aux réalités régionales. Cet effort souligne l'importance d'adapter des lignes directrices mondiales aux contextes locaux, afin d'en améliorer l'applicabilité et l'efficacité. Le processus d'adaptation représente également une occasion précieuse de transfert de compétences et de renforcement des capacités en matière d'élaboration de lignes directrices. Des recherches continues s'imposent pour évaluer l'impact de ces adaptations sur les résultats des soins de santé dans les Caraïbes.

La función normativa de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) consiste en elaborar directrices basadas en pruebas y principios para orientar a sus Estados Miembros en la toma de decisiones de salud pública bien fundamentadas. Aunque con frecuencia es necesario adaptar estas directrices para garantizar su pertinencia contextual y fomentar una mejor implementación y observancia, la adaptación de directrices existentes es más eficiente que la creación de otras nuevas. Aquí describimos la adaptación de la directriz vigente de la OMS sobre la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) relativa a las intervenciones farmacológicas para el Caribe utilizando el método de clasificación de valoración, elaboración y evaluación de las recomendaciones (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT. La Agencia de Salud Pública del Caribe y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud lideraron la iniciativa, que reunió a un variado grupo de 16 expertos de siete países y territorios caribeños. El proceso de adaptación, que comprendió 15 pasos y fue guiado por un metodólogo experimentado, incluyó la selección de preguntas clínicas pertinentes y su priorización en función de las necesidades regionales. El grupo evaluó las últimas directrices de la OMS e integró datos locales adicionales. Ajustaron la orientación y la fuerza de varias recomendaciones para adaptarlas mejor al contexto caribeño, teniendo en cuenta los valores y preferencias locales, los recursos, la accesibilidad, la viabilidad y el impacto en la equidad sanitaria. Finalmente, cambiamos la orientación de dos recomendaciones y la fuerza de cinco para adaptarlas a las realidades regionales. Esta iniciativa destaca la importancia de adaptar las directrices mundiales a los contextos locales, lo que mejora su aplicabilidad y eficacia. El proceso de adaptación también constituye una valiosa oportunidad para la transferencia de conocimientos y el desarrollo de capacidades en la elaboración de directrices. Es necesario seguir investigando para evaluar el impacto de estas adaptaciones en los resultados de la atención sanitaria en el Caribe.

Latin American panelists find GRADE-ADOLOPMENT useful and important to contextualize recommendations in their region.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT is widely applied to efficiently use existing credible guidelines and contextualize them to a target setting. To highlight the experiences of a Latin American Guideline Development Group (GDG) applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adapt the American Society of Hematology's clinical practice guideline on managing venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) in Latin America. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We employed a mixed-method postevaluation using self-administered surveys and semistructured interviews. We assessed the Latin American GDG (1) general satisfaction and confidence using the approach, (2) their ratings on the usefulness, appropriateness, and importance of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT and its tools to inform their judgements, and (3) any additional facilitators and barriers to refine the process. RESULTS: Eleven of the 14 GDG members, including nine panelists and two methodologists, provided survey responses and eight participated in the interview. Respondents felt "mostly" or "completely" satisfied with the adapted guideline. Eight panelists who were surveyed agree that GRADE-ADOLOPMENT is useful in countries with limited resources. Although panelists expressed initial apprehensions in their understanding of the process, they demonstrated enhanced confidence in their capacity to apply GRADE after completing workshop training and by acquiring experience. Panelists reiterated the importance of considering evidence-to-decision (EtD) criteria (ie, resources, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness) when adapting recommendations. The GDG encountered challenges with collecting local and regional data, prioritizing recommendations while considering intraregional diversity, and the lengthy publication period, although the latter stemmed from procedures not related to GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. CONCLUSIONS: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT is an important tool to facilitate the adaptation and uptake of clinical practice guidelines in novel settings. The GDG felt satisfied with their overall experience using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach. However, their experience could have been optimized if they had access to robust regional evidence, more recommendations to adapt from, and worked with more efficient guideline production timelines.

GRADE guidance 39: using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. METHODS: Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval. RESULTS: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others. CONCLUSION: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources.

International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis clinical practice guideline for treatment of congenital hemophilia A and B based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia is a rare congenital bleeding disorder that results from complete or partial deficiency of blood coagulation factor (F)VIII (hemophilia A) or FIX (hemophilia B) due to pathogenic variants in their coding genes. Hemophilia requires complex management. To date, there is no evidence-based clinical practice guideline on hemophilia treatment based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. OBJECTIVES: This evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis aims to provide an overview of evidence and support patients, caregivers, hematologists, pediatricians, other clinicians, researchers, and stakeholders in treatment decisions about congenital hemophilia A and B. METHODS: The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of physicians and patients with global representation, balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel prioritized a set of clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. A methodological team supported the guideline development process, including searching for evidence and performing systematic reviews. The GRADE approach was used, including GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks. The recommendations were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel selected 13 questions, of which 11 addressed the treatment of hemophilia A and 2 the treatment of hemophilia B. Specifically, the panel addressed questions on prophylactic and episodic treatment with FVIII concentrates, bypassing agents, and nonfactor therapy (emicizumab) for hemophilia A (with and without inhibitors) as well as immune tolerance induction for hemophilia A. For hemophilia B, the panel addressed questions on prophylactic and episodic treatment of bleeding events with FIX concentrates. Agreement was reached for all 13 recommendations, of which 7 (54%) were based on evidence from randomized clinical trials, 3 (23%) on observational studies, and 3 (23%) on indirect comparisons. CONCLUSION: Strong recommendations were issued for prophylactic over episodic treatment for severe and moderately severe hemophilia A and B. Only conditional recommendations were issued for the remaining questions. Future research should focus on direct treatment comparisons and the treatment of hemophilia B with and without inhibitors. Future updates of this guideline will provide an updated evidence synthesis on the current questions and focus on new FVIII and FIX concentrates, novel nonfactor therapies, and gene therapy for severe and nonsevere hemophilia A and B.

Considering planetary health in health guidelines and health technology assessments: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: This protocol outlines a scoping review with the objective of identifying and exploring planetary health considerations within existing health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTA). The insights gained from this review will serve as a basis for shaping future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health. METHODS: We will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of results in all languages across various databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Systems Evidence, Greenfile, and Environmental Issues. Additionally, we will supplement this search with resources such as the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos, GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool Database, MAGICapp, NICE website, WHO websites, and a manual exploration of unpublished relevant documents using Google incognito mode. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess the full texts of identified documents according to the eligibility criteria. The following information from each full text will be extracted: document title; first author's name; publication year; language; document type; document as a guideline or HTA; the topic/discipline; document purpose/study objective; developing/sponsoring organization; the country in which the study/guideline/HTA report was conducted; definition of planetary health or related concept provided; types of planetary health experts engaged; study methods; suggested methods to assess planetary health; use of secondary data on planetary health outcomes; description for use of life cycle assessment; description for assessing the quality of life cycle; population/intended audience; interventions; category; applicable planetary health boundaries; consideration of social justice/global equity; phase of intervention in life cycle related to planetary health addressed; the measure of planetary health impact; impact on biodiversity/land use; one health/animal welfare mention; funding; and conflict of interest. Data analysis will involve a combination of descriptive statistics and directed content analysis, with results presented in a narrative format and displayed in tables and graphs. DISCUSSION: The final review results will be submitted to open-access peer-reviewed journals for publication when they become available. The research findings will also be disseminated at relevant planetary health conferences and workshops. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/3jmsa ).

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

American Society of Hematology, ABHH, ACHO, Grupo CAHT, Grupo CLAHT, SAH, SBHH, SHU, SOCHIHEM, SOMETH, Sociedad Panamena de Hematología, Sociedad Peruana de Hematología, and SVH 2023 guidelines for diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and for its management in special populations in Latin America.

Implementation of international guidelines in Latin American settings requires additional considerations (ie, values and preferences, resources, accessibility, feasibility, and impact on health equity). The purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations about the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its management in children and during pregnancy. We used the GRADE ADOLOPMENT method to adapt recommendations from 3 American Society of Hematology (ASH) VTE guidelines (diagnosis of VTE, VTE in pregnancy, and VTE in the pediatric population). ASH and 12 local hematology societies formed a guideline panel comprising medical professionals from 10 countries in Latin America. Panelists prioritized 10 questions about the diagnosis of VTE and 18 questions about its management in special populations that were relevant for the Latin American context. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence reviews of health effects conducted for the original ASH guidelines and summarized information about factors specific to the Latin American context. In comparison with the original guideline, there were significant changes in 2 of 10 diagnostic recommendations (changes in the diagnostic algorithms) and in 9 of 18 management recommendations (4 changed direction and 5 changed strength). This guideline ADOLOPMENT project highlighted the importance of contextualizing recommendations in other settings based on differences in values, resources, feasibility, and health equity impact.

The impact of climate change on health needs structured evidence assessment and an evidence to action framework to make decisions: a proposal to adopt the GRADE approach.

OBJECTIVES: To highlight how using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to understand the certainty in the evidence about the impact of climate change in health outcomes increases transparency. Also, how GRADE can enhance communication and decisions about adaptation and mitigation strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a narrative review based on an assessment of exiting systematic reviews addressing the effect of climate change on health outcomes and the impact of mitigation and adaptation strategies. RESULTS: Adopting structured approaches such as GRADE to tackle the impact of climate change on health may help to (1) define the specific question to be addressed; (2) summarize the evidence in a structured way and assess uncertainty; (3) provide a systematic framework to move from evidence to action and to offer recommendations of different strength; (4) provide a systematic way to adapt recommendations to specific settings; and (5) provide a framework to assess the certainty of modeled evidence. CONCLUSION: In this article, we describe epidemiologic principles that could be used to move decision-making in climate change forward.

GRADE guidance 35: update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to rate the certainty domain of imprecision is presently not fully operationalized for rating down by two levels and when different baseline risk or uncertainty in these risks are considered. In addition, there are scenarios in which lowering the certainty of evidence by three levels for imprecision is more appropriate than lowering it by two levels. In this article, we conceptualize and operationalize rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels for imprecision using the contextualized GRADE approaches and making decisions. METHODS: Through iterative discussions and refinement in online meetings and through email communication, we developed draft guidance to rating the certainty of evidence down by up to three levels based on examples. The lead authors revised the approach according to the feedback and the comments received during these meetings and developed GRADE guidance for how to apply it. We presented a summary of the results to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meeting for feedback in October 2021 (approximately 80 people) where the approach was formally approved. RESULTS: This guidance provides GRADE's novel approach for the considerations about rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels based on serious, very serious and extremely serious concerns. The approach includes identifying or defining thresholds for health outcomes that correspond to trivial or none, small, moderate or large effects and using them to rate imprecision. It facilitates the use of evidence to decision frameworks and also provides guidance for how to address imprecision about implausible large effects and trivial or no effects using the concept of the 'review information size' and for varying baseline risks. The approach is illustrated using practical examples, an online calculator and graphical displays and can be applied to dichotomous and continuous outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this GRADE guidance article, we provide updated guidance for how to rate imprecision using the partially and fully contextualized GRADE approaches for making recommendations or decisions, considering alternate baseline risks and for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: March 2022 update on the use of anticoagulation in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: January 2022 update on the use of therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in acutely ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness.

Using Explicit Thresholds were valuable for judging Benefits and Harms in partially contextualized GRADE Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Guideline panels must assess the magnitude of health benefits and harms to develop sensible recommendations. However, they rarely use explicit thresholds. In this paper we report on the piloting and the use thresholds for benefits and harms. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We piloted the use of thresholds in a Chilean COVID-19 living guideline. For each of the critical outcomes, we asked panelists to suggest values of the thresholds for large, moderate, small, or trivial or no effect. We collected this information through a survey and an on-line discussion. RESULTS: Twelve panelists decided on thresholds for three critical outcomes (mortality, need for mechanical ventilation and serious adverse events). For all outcomes, an absolute risk reduction was considered larger with more than 50 events, moderate with less than 50 events, small with less than 25 events, and trivial with less than 10 events. Having these a priori thresholds in place significantly impacted on the development of recommendations. CONCLUSION: Explicit thresholds were a valuable addition to the judgment of the certainty in the evidence, to decide the direction and strength of the recommendation and to evaluate the need for update. We believe this is a line of research worth perusing.

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106181.

An evaluation of the COVID-19 recommendation map identified diverging clinical and public health guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. RESULTS: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. CONCLUSION: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.

American Society of Hematology, ABHH, ACHO, Grupo CAHT, Grupo CLAHT, SAH, SBHH, SHU, SOCHIHEM, SOMETH, Sociedad Panameña de Hematología, Sociedad Peruana de Hematología, and SVH 2022 guidelines for prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical and medical patients and long-distance travelers in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common disease in Latin American settings. Implementation of international guidelines in Latin American settings requires additional considerations. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidelines about VTE prevention for Latin American patients, clinicians, and decision makers. METHODS: We used the GRADE ADOLOPMENT method to adapt recommendations from 2 American Society of Hematology (ASH) VTE guidelines (Prevention of VTE in Surgical Patients and Prophylaxis for Medical Patients). ASH and 12 local hematology societies formed a guideline panel composed of medical professionals from 10 countries in Latin America. Panelists prioritized 20 questions relevant to the Latin American context. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence reviews of health effects conducted for the original ASH guidelines and summarized information about factors specific to the Latin American context, that is, values and preferences, resources, accessibility, feasibility, and impact on health equity. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 21 recommendations. In comparison with the original guideline, 6 recommendations changed direction and 4 recommendations changed strength. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline ADOLOPMENT project highlighted the importance of contextualization of recommendations in other settings, based on differences in values, resources, feasibility, and health equity impact.

A taxonomy and framework for identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines suggests avoiding informal recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework. RESULTS: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process. CONCLUSION: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: July 2021 update on postdischarge thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who are discharged from the hospital and who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: This recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials assessing the role of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge.