The representation of women on Australian clinical practice guideline panels, 2010-2020.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the composition by gender of Australian clinical practice guideline development panels; to explore guideline development-related factors that influence the composition of panels. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Survey of clinical guidelines published in Australia during 2010-2020 that observed the 2016 NHMRC Standards for Guidelines, identified (June 2021) in the NHMRC Clinical Practice Guideline Portal or by searching the Guideline International Network guidelines library, the Trip medical database, and PubMed. The gender of contributors to guideline development was inferred from gendered titles (guideline documents) or pronouns (online biographies). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The overall proportion of guideline panel members - the guideline contributors who formally considered evidence and formulated recommendations (ie, guideline panel chairs and members) - who were women. RESULTS: Of 406 eligible guidelines, 335 listed the names of people who contributed to their development (82%). Of 7472 named contributors (including 511 guideline panel chairs [6.8%] and 5039 guideline panel members [67.4%]), 3514 were men (47.0%), 3345 were women (44.8%), and gender could not be determined for 612 (8.2%). A total of 215 guideline panel chairs were women (42.1%), 280 were men (54.8%); 2566 guideline panel members were men (50.9%), 2071 were women (41.1%). The proportion of female guideline panel members was smaller than 40% for 179 guidelines (53%) and larger than 60% for 71 guidelines (21%). The median guideline proportion of female panel members was smaller than 50% for all but two years (2017, 2018). CONCLUSIONS: The representation of women in health leadership roles in Australia does not reflect their level of participation in the health care workforce. In particular, clinical guideline development bodies should develop transparent policies for increasing the participation of women in guideline development panels.

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, and methods of prophylaxis are therefore often used for women considered to be at risk. This may include women who have given birth by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of VTE and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and as the risk of VTE is often low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms. Guidelines for clinical practice have been based on expert opinion rather than high-quality evidence from randomised trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in women who are pregnant or have recently given birth and are at increased risk of VTE on the incidence of VTE and adverse effects of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2013).  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, and randomised trials comparing two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials, at an overall moderate risk of bias, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Only 16 trials, involving 2592 women, assessing a range of methods of thromboprophylaxis, contributed data to the review. Six trials compared methods of antenatal prophylaxis: heparin versus no treatment/placebo (two trials), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) (four trials). Nine trials assessed prophylaxis after caesarean section: four compared heparin with placebo; three compared LMWH with UFH; one compared hydroxyethyl starch (HES) with UFH; and one compared five-day versus 10-day LMWH. One study examined prophylaxis with UFH in the postnatal period (including following vaginal births).For antenatal prophylaxis, none of the included trials reported on maternal mortality, and no differences were detected for the other primary outcomes of symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo or when LMWH was compared with UFH. The risk ratios (RR) for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: antenatal LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99 (two trials, 56 women); and antenatal LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49 (four trials, 404 women). No differences were shown when antenatal LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo for any secondary outcomes. Antenatal LMWH was associated with fewer adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; two trials, 226 women), and fewer fetal losses (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; three trials, 343 women) when compared with UFH. In two trials, antenatal LMWH compared with UFH was associated with fewer bleeding episodes (defined in one trial of 121 women as bruises > 1 inch (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.36); and in one trial of 105 women as injection site haematomas of ≥ 2 cm, bleeding during delivery or other bleeding (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53)), however in a further trial of 117 women no difference between groups was shown for bleeding at delivery. The results for these secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution, being derived from small trials that were not of high methodological quality.For post-caesarean/postnatal prophylaxis, only one trial comparing five-day versus 10-day LMWH after caesarean section reported on maternal mortality, observing no deaths. No differences were seen across any of the comparisons for the other primary outcomes (symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT). The RRs for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: post-caesarean LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27 (four trials, 840 women); post-caesarean LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99 (three trials, 217 women); post-caesarean five-day versus 10-day LMWH, RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78 (one trial, 646 women); postnatal UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36 (one trial, 210 women). For prophylaxis after caesarean section, in one trial (of 580 women), women receiving UFH and physiotherapy were more likely to have bleeding complications ('complications hémorragiques') than women receiving physiotherapy alone (RR 5.03; 95% CI 2.49 to 10.18). In two additional trials, that compared LMWH with placebo, no difference between groups in bleeding episodes (major bleeding; major bruising; bleeding/bruising reported at discharge) were detected. No other differences in secondary outcomes were shown when LMWH was compared with UFH post-caesarean, nor when post-caesarean HES was compared with UFH, post-caesarean five-day LMWH was compared with 10-day LMWH, or when UFH was compared to no heparin postnatally. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence on which to base recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period, with the small number of differences detected in this review being largely derived from trials that were not of high methodological quality. Large scale, high-quality randomised trials of currently used interventions are warranted.

Review article: Developing the Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Mild to Moderate Head Injuries in Children: An adoption/adaption approach.

The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) released the Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Mild to Moderate Head Injuries in Children in 2021. We describe innovative and practical methods used to develop this guideline. Informed by GRADE-ADOLOPMENT and ADAPTE frameworks, we adopted or adapted recommendations from multiple high-quality guidelines or developed de novo recommendations. A Guideline Steering Committee and a multidisciplinary Guideline Working Group of 25 key stakeholder representatives formulated the guideline scope and developed 33 clinical questions. We identified four relevant high-quality source guidelines; their recommendations were mapped to clinical questions. The choice of guideline recommendation, if more than one guideline addressed a question, was based on its appropriateness, currency of the literature, access to evidence, and relevance. Updated literature searches identified 440 new studies and key new evidence identified. The decision to develop adopted, adapted or de novo recommendations was based on the supporting evidence-base and its transferability to the local setting. The guideline underwent a 12-week consultation period. The final guideline consisted of 35 evidence-informed and 17 consensus-based recommendations and 19 practice points. An algorithm to inform imaging and observation decision-making was also developed. The resulting process was an efficient and rigorous way to develop a guideline based on existing high-quality guidelines from different settings.

Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Mild to Moderate Head Injuries in Children.

OBJECTIVE: Children frequently present with head injuries to acute care settings. Although international paediatric clinical practice guidelines for head injuries exist, they do not address all considerations related to triage, imaging, observation versus admission, transfer, discharge and follow-up of mild to moderate head injuries relevant to the Australian and New Zealand context. The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) set out to develop an evidence-based, locally applicable, practical clinical guideline for the care of children with mild to moderate head injuries presenting to acute care settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Guideline Working Group (GWG) developed 33 questions in three key areas - triage, imaging and discharge of children with mild to moderate head injuries presenting to acute care settings. We identified existing high-quality guidelines and from these guidelines recommendations were mapped to clinical questions. Updated literature searches were undertaken, and key new evidence identified. Recommendations were created through either adoption, adaptation or development of de novo recommendations. The guideline was revised after a period of public consultation. RESULTS: The GWG developed 71 recommendations (evidence-informed = 35, consensus-based = 17, practice points = 19), relevant to the Australian and New Zealand setting. The guideline is presented as three documents: (i) a detailed Full Guideline summarising the evidence underlying each recommendation; (ii) a Guideline Summary; and (iii) a clinical Algorithm: Imaging and Observation Decision-making for Children with Head Injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The PREDICT Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Mild to Moderate Head Injuries in Children provides high-level evidence and practical guidance for front line clinicians.