GRADE GUIDANCE 38: Updated guidance for rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient.

INTRODUCTION: This updated guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation addresses rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient (DRG) observed in synthesis of intervention and exposure studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This guidance was developed using iterative discussions and consensus in multiple meetings and was presented to attendees of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group meeting for feedback in November 2022 and for final approval in May 2023. RESULTS: The guidance consists of two steps. The first is to determine whether the DRG is credible. We describe five items for assessing credibility: a) is DRG identified using a proper analytical approach; b) is confounding the cause of the DRG; c) is there serious concern about ecological bias; d) is the DRG consistent across studies; and e) is there indirect evidence supporting the DRG. The first two of these items are the most critical. If the DRG was judged to be credible, then the second step is to apply the DRG domain and consider rating up, but only by one level due to the concern about residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Systematic review authors should only rate up certainty in evidence when a DRG is deemed credible.

Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. RESULTS: We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess trends in guideline implementation, including the interventions used, rationale provided, and the impact on patient or health care professional knowledge, behavior or outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Guidelines must be actively implemented to promote use and achieve beneficial outcomes. A review published in 2015 found that studies of guideline implementation did not employ a range of implementation planning approaches to select and tailor interventions, resulting in inconsistent impact. This study will update the 2015 review and elaborate beyond the four diseases originally covered to determine whether more recent efforts to implement guidelines are informed by best implementation practices. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include published studies that describe the implementation of guidelines on any clinical topic relevant to primary, secondary, or tertiary care using interventions targeted at patients, families/caregivers, or health care professionals. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from 2014 (search date in 2015 review) to the present. Two or more reviewers will screen titles and full-text articles, and extract data from included studies. We will use summary statistics, tables, and a narrative summary to describe study characteristics, guideline implementation interventions, the rationale for intervention selection and tailoring (pre-identified barriers, patient or stakeholder preferences, theory), and intervention impact.

SCAI publications committee manual of standard operating procedures.

Evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice are intended to help health care providers and patients make decisions, minimize inappropriate practice variation, promote effective resource use, improve clinical outcomes, and direct future research. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has been engaged in the creation and dissemination of clinical guidance documents since the 1990s. These documents are a cornerstone of the society's education, advocacy, and quality improvement initiatives. The publications committee is charged with oversight of SCAI's clinical documents program and has created this manual of standard operating procedures to ensure consistency, methodological rigor, and transparency in the development and endorsement of the society's documents. The manual is intended for use by the publications committee, document writing groups, external collaborators, SCAI representatives, peer reviewers, and anyone seeking information about the SCAI documents program.