Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. DESIGN: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: 44 experts. MEASUREMENTS: Consensus on checklist items. RESULTS: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Advancing guideline quality through country-wide and regional quality assessment of CPGs using AGREE: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evaluated for quality with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool, and this is increasingly done for different countries and regional groupings. This scoping review aimed to describe, map, and compare these geographical synthesis studies, that assessed CPG quality using the AGREE tool. This allowed a global interpretation of the current landscape of these country-wide or regional synthesis studies, and a closer look at its methodology and results. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted searching databases Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos, and grey literature on 5 October 2021 for synthesis studies using the later versions of AGREE (AGREE II, AGREE-REX and AGREE GRS) to evaluate country-wide or regional CPG quality. Country-wide or regional synthesis studies were the units of analysis, and simple descriptive statistics was used to conduct the analysis. AGREE scores were analysed across subgroups into one of the seven Sustainable Development Goal regions, to allow for meaningful interpretation. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria, which had included a total of 2918 CPGs. Regions of the Global North, and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia were most represented. Studies were consistent in reporting and presenting their AGREE domain and overall results, but only 18% (n = 10) reported development methods, and 19% (n = 11) reported use of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Overall scores for domains Rigor of development and Editorial independence were low, notably in middle-income countries. Editorial Independence scores, especially, were low across all regions with a maximum domain score of 46%. There were no studies from low-income countries. CONCLUSION: There is an increasing tendency to appraise country-wide and regionally grouped CPGs, using quality appraisal tools. The AGREE tool, evaluated in this scoping review, was used well and consistently across studies. Findings of low report rates of development of CPGs and of use of GRADE is concerning, as is low domain scores globally for Editorial Independence. Transparent reporting of funding and competing interests, as well as highlighting evidence-to-decision processes, should assist in further improving CPG quality as clinicians are in dire need of high-quality guidelines.

Balanced crystalloid solutions versus 0.9% saline for treating acute diarrhoea and severe dehydration in children.

BACKGROUND: Although acute diarrhoea is a self-limiting disease, dehydration may occur in some children. Dehydration is the consequence of an increased loss of water and electrolytes (sodium, chloride, potassium, and bicarbonate) in liquid stools. When these losses are high and not replaced adequately, severe dehydration appears. Severe dehydration is corrected with intravenous solutions. The most frequently used solution for this purpose is 0.9% saline. Balanced solutions (e.g. Ringer's lactate) are alternatives to 0.9% saline and have been associated with fewer days of hospitalization and better biochemical outcomes. Available guidelines provide conflicting recommendations. It is unclear whether 0.9% saline or balanced intravenous fluids are most effective for rehydrating children with severe dehydration due to diarrhoea. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of balanced solutions for the rapid rehydration of children with severe dehydration due to acute diarrhoea, in terms of time in hospital and mortality compared to 0.9% saline. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials in children with severe dehydration due to acute diarrhoea comparing balanced solutions, such as Ringer's lactate or Plasma-Lyte with 0.9% saline solution, for rapid rehydration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. time in hospital and 2. MORTALITY: Our secondary outcomes were 3. need for additional fluids, 4. total amount of fluids received, 5. time to resolution of metabolic acidosis, 6. change in and the final values of biochemical measures (pH, bicarbonate, sodium, chloride, potassium, and creatinine), 7. incidence of acute kidney injury, and 8. ADVERSE EVENTS: We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Characteristics of the included studies We included five studies with 465 children. Data for meta-analysis were available from 441 children. Four studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries and one study in two high-income countries. Four studies evaluated Ringer's lactate, and one study evaluated Plasma-Lyte. Two studies reported the time in hospital, and only one study reported mortality as an outcome. Four studies reported final pH and five studies reported bicarbonate levels. Adverse events reported were hyponatremia and hypokalaemia in two studies each. Risk of bias All studies had at least one domain at high or unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias assessment informed the GRADE assessments. Primary outcomes Compared to 0.9% saline, the balanced solutions likely result in a slight reduction of the time in hospital (mean difference (MD) -0.35 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.10; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the balanced solutions on mortality during hospitalization in severely dehydrated children (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.39; 1 study, 22 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Balanced solutions probably produce a higher increase in blood pH (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; 4 studies, 366 children; low-certainty evidence) and bicarbonate levels (MD 2.44 mEq/L, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.97; 443 children, four studies; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, balanced solutions likely reduces the risk of hypokalaemia after the intravenous correction (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.96; 2 studies, 147 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that balanced solutions may result in no difference in the need for additional intravenous fluids after the initial correction; in the amount of fluids administered; or in the mean change of sodium, chloride, potassium, and creatinine levels. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of balanced solutions on mortality during hospitalization in severely dehydrated children. However, balanced solutions likely result in a slight reduction of the time in the hospital compared to 0.9% saline. Also, balanced solutions likely reduce the risk of hypokalaemia after intravenous correction. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that balanced solutions compared to 0.9% saline probably produce no changes in the need for additional intravenous fluids or in other biochemical measures such as sodium, chloride, potassium, and creatinine levels. Last, there may be no difference between balanced solutions and 0.9% saline in the incidence of hyponatraemia.

AGREE-S: AGREE II extension for surgical interventions: appraisal instrument.

BACKGROUND: The Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was developed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines. Evidence suggests that development, reporting, and appraisal of guidelines on surgical interventions may be better informed by modification of the instrument. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension specifically designed for appraisal of guidelines of surgical interventions. METHODS: In a three-part project funded by the United European Gastroenterology and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, (i) we identified factors that were associated with higher quality of surgical guidelines, (ii) we statistically calibrated the AGREE II instrument in the context of surgical guidelines using correlation, reliability, and factor analysis, and (iii) we undertook a Delphi consensus process of stakeholders to inform the development of an AGREE II extension instrument for surgical interventions. RESULTS: Several features were prioritized by stakeholders as of particular importance for guidelines of surgical interventions, including development of a guideline protocol, consideration of practice variability and surgical expertise in different settings, and specification of infrastructures required to implement the recommendations. The AGREE-S-AGREE II extension instrument for surgical interventions has 25 items, compared to the 23 items of the original AGREE II instrument, organized into the following 6 domains: Scope and purpose, Stakeholders, Evidence synthesis, Development of recommendations, Editorial independence, and Implementation and update. As the original instrument, it concludes with an overall appraisal of the quality of the guideline and a judgement on whether the guideline is recommended for use. Several items were amended and rearranged among domains, and an item was deleted. The Rigor of Development domain of the original AGREE II was divided into Evidence Synthesis and Development of Recommendations. Items of the AGREE II domain Clarity of Presentation were incorporated in the new domain Development of Recommendations. Three new items were introduced, addressing the development of a guideline protocol, support by a guideline methodologist, and consideration of surgical experience/expertise. CONCLUSION: The AGREE-S appraisal instrument has been developed to be used for assessment of the methodological and reporting quality of guidelines on surgical interventions.

Guidelines for the prevention and management of children and adolescents with COVID-19.

Children are the future of the world, but their health and future are facing great uncertainty because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In order to improve the management of children with COVID-19, an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts developed a rapid advice guideline at the beginning of the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. After publishing the first version of the rapid advice guideline, the panel has updated the guideline by including additional stakeholders in the panel and a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. All recommendations were supported by systematic reviews and graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Expert judgment was used to develop good practice statements supplementary to the graded evidence-based recommendations. The updated guideline comprises nine recommendations and one good practice statement. It focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health. CONCLUSION: This updated evidence-based guideline intends to provide clinicians, pediatricians, patients and other stakeholders with evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Larger studies with longer follow-up to determine the effectiveness and safety of systemic glucocorticoids, IVIG, noninvasive ventilation, and the vaccines for COVID-19 in children and adolescents are encouraged. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Several clinical practice guidelines for children with COVID-19 have been developed, but only few of them have been recently updated. • We developed an evidence-based guideline at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and have now updated it based on the results of a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. WHAT IS NEW: • The updated guideline provides key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.

Guideline Assessment Project II: statistical calibration informed the development of an AGREE II extension for surgical guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To inform the development of an AGREE II extension specifically tailored for surgical guidelines. AGREE II was designed to inform the development, reporting, and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has suggested substantial room for improvement of the quality of surgical guidelines. METHODS: A previously published search in MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017, resulted in a total of 67 guidelines. The quality of these guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. We performed a series of statistical analyses (reliability, correlation and Factor Analysis, Item Response Theory) with the objective to calibrate AGREE II for use specifically in surgical guidelines. RESULTS: Reliability/correlation/factor analysis and Item Response Theory produced similar results and suggested that a structure of 5 domains, instead of 6 domains of the original instrument, might be more appropriate. Furthermore, exclusion and re-arrangement of items to other domains was found to increase the reliability of AGREE II when applied in surgical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that statistical calibration of AGREE II might improve the development, reporting, and appraisal of surgical guidelines.

Management of Acute Pain From Non-Low Back, Musculoskeletal Injuries : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited. CONCLUSION: Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

A Comparison of AGREE and RIGHT: which Clinical Practice Guideline Reporting Checklist Should Be Followed by Guideline Developers?

BACKGROUND: A clinical practice guideline (CPG) reporting checklist is used to assist CPG developers in recording what content should be provided in a CPG report. Recently, two checklists have become available on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network website: AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation) published in 2016 and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) published in 2017. The objective of this study was to describe the advantages and disadvantages of these two CPG reporting checklists. METHODS: Two epidemiologists who lacked experience using both AGREE and RIGHT but were familiar with evidence-based medicine methodology independently compared AGREE with RIGHT on an item-by-item basis. Their assessments were compiled on a pre-designed data form and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Three other co-authors independently compared AGREE with RIGHT and decided if they agreed with the results of comparison of the two CPG reporting checklists from the first two co-authors. Finally, another co-author reviewed the comparison results to ensure that the description was clear and understandable. RESULTS: The following six relationships between the two checklists were observed: (1) 11 items from AGREE completely matched with 12 items from RIGHT; (2) four items were listed in AGREE only; (3) 12 items were listed in RIGHT only; (4) three items in AGREE were partially covered by three items in RIGHT; (5) six items in RIGHT were partially covered by three items in AGREE; and (6) two items intersected across AGREE and RIGHT. Based on the comparison results, the potential impact analysis of selecting either checklist is described. DISCUSSION: We recommend that CPG developers use either AGREE plus items unique to RIGHT or RIGHT plus items unique to AGREE.

A framework for explaining the role of values in health policy decision-making in Latin America: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Although values underpin the goals pursued in health systems, including how health systems benefit the population, it is often not clear how values are incorporated into policy decision-making about health systems. The challenge is to encompass social/citizen values, health system goals, and financial realities and to incorporate them into the policy-making process. This is a challenge for all health systems and of particular importance for Latin American (LA) countries. Our objective was to understand how and under what conditions societal values inform decisions about health system financing in LA countries. METHODS: A critical interpretive synthesis approach was utilised for this work. We searched 17 databases in December 2016 to identify articles written in English, Spanish or Portuguese that focus on values that inform the policy process for health system financing in LA countries at the macro and meso levels. Two reviewers independently screened records and assessed them for inclusion. One researcher conceptually mapped the included articles, created structured summaries of key findings from each, and selected a purposive sample of articles to thematically synthesise the results across the domains of agenda-setting/prioritisation, policy development and implementation. RESULTS: We identified 5925 references, included 199 papers, and synthesised 68 papers. We identified 116 values and developed a framework to explain how values have been used to inform policy decisions about financing in LA countries. This framework has four categories - (1) goal-related values (i.e. guiding principles of the health system); (2) technical values (those incorporated into the instruments adopted by policy-makers to ensure a sustainable and efficient health system); (3) governance values (those applied in the policy process to ensure a transparent and accountable process of decision-making); and (4) situational values (a broad category of values that represent competing strategies to make decisions in the health systems, their influence varying according to the four factors). CONCLUSIONS: It is an effort to consolidate and explain how different social values are considered and how they support policy decision-making about health system financing. This can help policy-makers to explicitly incorporate values into the policy process and understand how values are supporting the achievement of policy goals in health system financing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, ID=CRD42017057049 .

Safety and efficacy of active and passive immunotherapy in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically review and conduct a direct and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have examined the clinical safety and efficacy of using passive and active immunotherapies in Alzheimer's disease (AD). RESEARCH QUESTIONS: (1) Is amyloid-based immunotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate AD associated with more efficacy benefits compared to placebo? (2) Which immunotherapy agent is associated with more comparative benefit? (3) Is passive or active immunotherapy associated with more benefits? DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of published randomized controlled trials was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane library. Review methods and meta-analysis: Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Important AD cognitive scales as clinical efficacy outcomes were ADAS-cog, CDR and MMSE whereas edema, neoplasms and mortality were included as safety outcomes. A direct comparison meta-analysis using a random effect model and a network (direct and indirect) comparison was conducted to calculate mean differences in treatment effects, SUCRA and ranking probabilities for each medicine per safety and efficacy outcome. Quality of network results were assessed using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Thirteen RCT-assessed patients with mild-to-moderate AD were included in the final analysis. The results showed that immunotherapies compared with placebo produced a statistically, but not clinically significant, improvement in ADAS-cog (MD=-0.39; 95% CI -0.42, -0.35, P=0.00) and MMSE. In terms of safety, the rate of ARIA-E was significantly higher with monoclonal antibodies. Solanezumab and AN1792 (vaccine) were the drugs of choice both from efficacy and safety perspectives. CONCLUSION: In terms of efficacy, the review showed a statistically, but not clinically significant, improvement in favor of immunotherapy versus placebo. Further clinical trials are required to demonstrate any cognitive benefits of immunotherapies in mild-to-moderate AD.

Smectite for acute infectious diarrhoea in children.

BACKGROUND: As mortality secondary to acute infectious diarrhoea has decreased worldwide, the focus shifts to adjuvant therapies to lessen the burden of disease. Smectite, a medicinal clay, could offer a complementary intervention to reduce the duration of diarrhoea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of smectite for treating acute infectious diarrhoea in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase (Ovid), LILACS, reference lists from studies and previous reviews, and conference abstracts, up to 27 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing smectite to a control group in children aged one month to 18 years old with acute infectious diarrhoea. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and the full texts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were duration of diarrhoea and clinical resolution at day 3. We summarized continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) and dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses and assessed heterogeneity. We explored publication bias using a funnel plot. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials with 2616 children met our inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in both ambulatory and in-hospital settings, and in both high-income and low- or middle-income countries. Most studies included children with rotavirus infections, and half included breastfed children.Smectite may reduce the duration of diarrhoea by approximately a day (MD -24.38 hours, 95% CI -30.91 to -17.85; 14 studies; 2209 children; low-certainty evidence); may increase clinical resolution at day 3 (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.39; 5 trials; 312 children; low-certainty evidence); and may reduce stool output (MD -11.37, 95% CI -21.94 to -0.79; 3 studies; 634 children; low-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether smectite reduces stool frequency, measured as depositions per day (MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.38; 3 studies; 954 children; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of an effect on need for hospitalization (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 2 studies; 885 children; low-certainty evidence) and need for intravenous rehydration (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 1 study; 81 children; moderate-certainty evidence). The most frequently reported side effect was constipation, which did not differ between groups (RR 4.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 39.19; 2 studies; 128 children; low-certainty evidence). No deaths or serious adverse effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, smectite used as an adjuvant to rehydration therapy may reduce the duration of diarrhoea in children with acute infectious diarrhoea by a day; may increase cure rate by day 3; and may reduce stool output, but has no effect on hospitalization rates or need for intravenous therapy.

Network meta-analysis: users' guide for pediatricians.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analytic tool that allows simultaneous comparison between several management/treatment alternatives even when direct comparisons of the alternatives (such as the case in which treatments are compared against placebo and have not been compared against each other) are unavailable. Though there are still a limited number of pediatric NMAs published, the rapid increase in NMAs in other areas suggests pediatricians will soon be frequently facing this new form of evidence summary. DISCUSSION: Evaluating the NMA evidence requires serial judgments on the creditability of the process of NMA conduct, and evidence quality assessment. First clinicians need to evaluate the basic standards applicable to any meta-analysis (e.g. comprehensive search, duplicate assessment of eligibility, risk of bias, and data abstraction). Then evaluate specific issues related to NMA including precision, transitivity, coherence, and rankings. CONCLUSIONS: In this article we discuss how clinicians can evaluate the credibility of NMA methods, and how they can make judgments regarding the quality (certainty) of the evidence. We illustrate the concepts using recent pediatric NMA publications.

Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers.

BACKGROUND: Situations such as public health emergencies and outbreaks necessitate the development and publication of high-quality recommendations within a condensed timeframe. For example, WHO has produced examples of and guidance for the development of rapid guidelines (RGs). However, more information is needed to understand the experiences and perceptions of guideline developers. This is the second of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. This study describes the perceptions and experiences of guideline developers at WHO about RGs. METHODS: We conducted interviews consisting of open- and closed-ended questions with guideline developers at WHO. Our analysis described the definition and rationale of RGs, the differences from regular guidelines with regard to timelines from topic definition until publication, barriers to identifying the evidence and the lack of a standard methodology to develop RGs. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 participants, the majority of whom were comfortable with the current WHO definition of RGs. Most stated that the rationale for developing RGs should be in response to new evidence about efficacy, cost-effectiveness or safety. Respondents differed with regards to the amount of time RGs should take. While the majority of participants agreed that guidelines should be based on a systematic review, this step in the process was considered the most time and resource intensive. Challenges for developing RGs included limited personnel and financial resources as well as the lack of evidence. Facilitators, in turn, that may improve RG development include additional financial and personnel resources as well as the use of virtual meetings. CONCLUSIONS: While our study suggests a strong need and rationale for the development of RGs, standardisation of timelines and guidance on panel composition, peer-review process, conduct of meetings and sources of permissible evidence require further research.

Development of rapid guidelines: 1. Systematic survey of current practices and methods.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines in the healthcare field generally should contain evidence-based recommendations to inform healthcare decisions. Guidelines often require 2 years or more to develop, but certain circumstances necessitate the development of rapid guidelines (RGs) in a short period of time. Upholding methodological rigor while meeting the reduced development timeframe presents a challenge for developing RGs. Our objective was to review current practices and standards for the development of RGs. This is the first of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic survey of methods manuals and published RGs to identify reasons for the development of RGs. Data sources included existing guideline manuals, published RGs, Trip Medical Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and communication with guideline developers until February 2018. RESULTS: We identified 46 guidelines that used a shortened timeframe for their development. Nomenclature describing RGs varied across organisations, wherein the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced 'Interim Guidelines', the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom developed 'Short Clinical Guidelines', and WHO provided 'Rapid Advice'. The rationale for RGs included response to emergencies, rapid increases in cases of a condition or disease severity, or new evidence regarding treatment. In general, the methods to assess the quality of evidence, the consensus process and the management of the conflict of interest were not always clear. While we identified another 11 RGs from other institutions, there was no reference to timeframe and reasons for conducting a RG. The three organisations mentioned above provide guidance for the development of RGs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of standardised nomenclature and definitions regarding RGs and there is inconsistency in the methods described in manuals and in RG. It is therefore important that all RGs provide a detailed and transparent description of their methods in order for readers and end-users to be able to assess their quality and validate their findings.

Validity and usability testing of a health systems guidance appraisal tool, the AGREE-HS.

BACKGROUND: Health systems guidance (HSG) provides recommendations to address health systems challenges. No tools exist to inform HSG developers and users about the components of high quality HSG and to differentiate between HSG of varying quality. In response, we developed a tool to assist with the development, reporting and appraisal of HSG - the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems (AGREE-HS). This paper reports on the validity, usability and initial measurement properties of the AGREE-HS. METHODS: To establish face validity (Study 1), stakeholders completed a survey about the AGREE-HS and provided feedback on its content and structure. Revisions to the tool were made in response. To establish usability (Study 2), the revised tool was applied to 85 HSG documents and the appraisers provided feedback about their experiences via an online survey. An initial test of the revised tool's measurement properties, including internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, was conducted. Additional revisions to the tool were made in response. RESULTS: In Study 1, the AGREE-HS Overview, User Manual, quality item content and structure, and overall assessment questions were rated favourably. Participants indicated that the AGREE-HS would be useful, feasible to use, and that they would apply it in their context. In Study 2, participants indicated that the quality items were easy to understand and apply, and the User Manual, usefulness and usability of the tool were rated favourably. Study 2 participants also indicated intentions to use the AGREE-HS. CONCLUSIONS: The AGREE-HS comprises a User Manual, five quality items and two overall assessment questions. It is available at agreetrust.org.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines-2016 revision.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. METHODS: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.

Association of Placebo, Indomethacin, Ibuprofen, and Acetaminophen With Closure of Hemodynamically Significant Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Despite increasing emphasis on conservative management of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants, different pharmacotherapeutic interventions are used to treat those developing a hemodynamically significant PDA. Objectives: To estimate the relative likelihood of hemodynamically significant PDA closure with common pharmacotherapeutic interventions and to compare adverse event rates. Data Sources and Study Selection: The databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until August 15, 2015, and updated on December 31, 2017, along with conference proceedings up to December 2017. Randomized clinical trials that enrolled preterm infants with a gestational age younger than 37 weeks treated with intravenous or oral indomethacin, ibuprofen, or acetaminophen vs each other, placebo, or no treatment for a clinically or echocardiographically diagnosed hemodynamically significant PDA. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were independently extracted in pairs by 6 reviewers and synthesized with Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: hemodynamically significant PDA closure; secondary: included surgical closure, mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, and intraventricular hemorrhage. Results: In 68 randomized clinical trials of 4802 infants, 14 different variations of indomethacin, ibuprofen, or acetaminophen were used as treatment modalities. The overall PDA closure rate was 67.4% (2867 of 4256 infants). A high dose of oral ibuprofen was associated with a significantly higher odds of PDA closure vs a standard dose of intravenous ibuprofen (odds ratio [OR], 3.59; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.64-8.17; absolute risk difference, 199 [95% CrI, 95-258] more per 1000 infants) and a standard dose of intravenous indomethacin (OR, 2.35 [95% CrI, 1.08-5.31]; absolute risk difference, 124 [95% CrI, 14-188] more per 1000 infants). Based on the ranking statistics, a high dose of oral ibuprofen ranked as the best pharmacotherapeutic option for PDA closure (mean surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] curve, 0.89 [SD, 0.12]) and to prevent surgical PDA ligation (mean SUCRA, 0.98 [SD, 0.08]). There was no significant difference in the odds of mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage with use of placebo or no treatment compared with any of the other treatment modalities. Conclusions and Relevance: A high dose of oral ibuprofen was associated with a higher likelihood of hemodynamically significant PDA closure vs standard doses of intravenous ibuprofen or intravenous indomethacin; placebo or no treatment did not significantly change the likelihood of mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42015015797.