Use, applicability, and dissemination of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines in oncology in Germany: a qualitative interview study with healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer have high information needs; however, they are often inadequately met. Patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs), a special form of evidence-based information, translate patient-relevant recommendations from clinical practice guidelines into lay language. To date, little is known about the experience of PVGs from healthcare providers' perspective in healthcare. This study aims to investigate the use, applicability, and dissemination of PVGs in oncology from the healthcare providers' perspective in Germany. METHODS: Twenty semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with oncological healthcare providers in Germany between October and December 2021. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software was utilised to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 20 healthcare providers (14 female, 6 male), mainly working as psychotherapists/psycho-oncologists and physicians, participated. Most participants (75%) were aware of the existence of PVGs. The content was predominantly perceived as comprehensible and relevant, whereas opinions on the design and format were mixed. The perceived lack of up-to-date information limited participants' trust in the content. Most felt that PVGs positively impact healthcare owing to the fact that they improve patients' knowledge about their disease. Additionally, PVGs served as a guide and helped healthcare providers structure physician-patient talks. Healthcare provider's unawareness of the existence of PVGs was cited as an obstructive factor to its dissemination to patients. CONCLUSION: Limited knowledge of the existence of PVGs among healthcare providers, coupled with alternative patient information, hinders the use and dissemination of PVGs in healthcare. However, the applicability of PVGs seemed to be acceptable owing to their content and good comprehensibility, especially with respect to physician-patient communication.

Barriers and facilitators in developing patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - qualitative interviews on experiences of international guideline producers.

BACKGROUND: Several guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts' perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs. METHODS: We conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data. RESULTS: In two interviews two participants were interviewed at the same time. This resulted in a total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and eight different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development. CONCLUSION: The steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future may be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction.

BACKGROUND: Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up). MAIN RESULTS: We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Guideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence. METHODS: A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593. FINDINGS: Of 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff. PATIENT-LEVEL: Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain. PROVIDER-LEVEL: Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

Automated Monitoring of Adherence to Evidenced-Based Clinical Guideline Recommendations: Design and Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements intended to optimize patient care. However, a gapless implementation of guideline recommendations requires health care personnel not only to be aware of the recommendations and to support their content but also to recognize every situation in which they are applicable. To not miss situations in which recommendations should be applied, computerized clinical decision support can be provided through a system that allows an automated monitoring of adherence to clinical guideline recommendations in individual patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to collect and analyze the requirements for a system that allows the monitoring of adherence to evidence-based clinical guideline recommendations in individual patients and, based on these requirements, to design and implement a software prototype that integrates guideline recommendations with individual patient data, and to demonstrate the prototype's utility in treatment recommendations. METHODS: We performed a work process analysis with experienced intensive care clinicians to develop a conceptual model of how to support guideline adherence monitoring in clinical routine and identified which steps in the model could be supported electronically. We then identified the core requirements of a software system to support recommendation adherence monitoring in a consensus-based requirements analysis within the loosely structured focus group work of key stakeholders (clinicians, guideline developers, health data engineers, and software developers). On the basis of these requirements, we designed and implemented a modular system architecture. To demonstrate its utility, we applied the prototype to monitor adherence to a COVID-19 treatment recommendation using clinical data from a large European university hospital. RESULTS: We designed a system that integrates guideline recommendations with real-time clinical data to evaluate individual guideline recommendation adherence and developed a functional prototype. The needs analysis with clinical staff resulted in a flowchart describing the work process of how adherence to recommendations should be monitored. Four core requirements were identified: the ability to decide whether a recommendation is applicable and implemented for a specific patient, the ability to integrate clinical data from different data formats and data structures, the ability to display raw patient data, and the use of a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources-based format for the representation of clinical practice guidelines to provide an interoperable, standards-based guideline recommendation exchange format. CONCLUSIONS: Our system has advantages in terms of individual patient treatment and quality management in hospitals. However, further studies are needed to measure its impact on patient outcomes and evaluate its resource effectiveness in different clinical settings. We specified a modular software architecture that allows experts from different fields to work independently and focus on their area of expertise. We have released the source code of our system under an open-source license and invite for collaborative further development of the system.

[Further Development and Interoperability in Oncological Care Structures, Quality Control and Research]. / Weiterentwicklung und Vernetzung der onkologischen Versorgungsstrukturen, der Qualitätssicherung und der Forschung.

How can we improve the interoperability of medical guidelines and the implementation and measurement of outcomes in medical health care for cancer patients as well as for care providers? This is the aim of the working group "Quality and Cross-linking". The following publication gives an overview of the targets reached in the development of guidelines together with quality indicators and documentation in cancer registries.

S3 guideline "actinic keratosis and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma" - update 2023, part 2: epidemiology and etiology, diagnostics, surgical and systemic treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), surveillance and prevention.

Actinic keratosis (AK) are common lesions in light-skinned individuals that can potentially progress to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Both conditions may be associated with significant morbidity and constitute a major disease burden, especially among the elderly. To establish an evidence-based framework for clinical decision making, the guideline "actinic keratosis and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma" was updated and expanded by the topics cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ (Bowen's disease) and actinic cheilitis. The guideline is aimed at dermatologists, general practitioners, ear nose and throat specialists, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists and radiation oncologists in hospitals and office-based settings, as well as other medical specialties, policy makers and insurance funds involved in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with AK and cSCC. A separate guideline exists for patients and their relatives. In this part, we will address aspects relating to epidemiology and etiology, diagnostics, surgical and systemic treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), surveillance and prevention.

[Recommendations of the S3 Guideline "Use of Extracorporeal Circulation (ECLS/ ECMO) for Cardiac and Circulatory Failure" of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany]. / Empfehlungen der S3-Leitlinie (AWMF) "Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen".

In recent years, the use of mechanical support for patients with cardiac or circulatory failure has continuously increased, leading to 3,000 ECLS/ECMO (extracorporeal life support/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) implantations annually in Germany. Due to the lack of guidelines, there is an urgent need for evidence-based recommendations addressing the central aspects of ECLS/ECMO therapy. In July 2015, the generation of a guideline level S3 according to the standards of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) was announced by the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS). In a well-structured consensus process, involving experts from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, delegated by 16 scientific societies and the patients' representation, the guideline "Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure" was created under guidance of the GSTCVS, and published in February 2021. The guideline focuses on clinical aspects of initiation, continuation, weaning and aftercare, herein also addressing structural and economic issues. This article presents an overview on the methodology as well as the final recommendations.

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.] / S2k-Leitlinie zur fachärztlichen Diagnostik und Therapie von Asthma 2023.

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients : Key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021).

PURPOSE: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

German S3 Guideline: Oxygen Therapy in the Acute Care of Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is a drug with specific biochemical and physiological properties, a range of effective doses and may have side effects. In 2015, 14% of over 55,000 hospital patients in the UK were using oxygen. 42% of patients received this supplemental oxygen without a valid prescription. Health care professionals are frequently uncertain about the relevance of hypoxemia and have low awareness about the risks of hyperoxemia. Numerous randomized controlled trials about targets of oxygen therapy have been published in recent years. A national guideline is urgently needed. METHODS: A national S3 guideline was developed and published within the Program for National Disease Management Guidelines (AWMF) with participation of 10 medical associations. A literature search was performed until February 1, 2021, to answer 10 key questions. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) System ("The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used to classify types of studies in terms of validity. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of evidence and for grading guideline recommendation, and a formal consensus-building process was performed. RESULTS: The guideline includes 34 evidence-based recommendations about indications, prescription, monitoring and discontinuation of oxygen therapy in acute care. The main indication for O2 therapy is hypoxemia. In acute care both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia should be avoided. Hyperoxemia also seems to be associated with increased mortality, especially in patients with hypercapnia. The guideline provides recommended target oxygen saturation for acute medicine without differentiating between diagnoses. Target ranges for oxygen saturation are based depending on ventilation status risk for hypercapnia. The guideline provides an overview of available oxygen delivery systems and includes recommendations for their selection based on patient safety and comfort. CONCLUSION: This is the first national guideline on the use of oxygen in acute care. It addresses health care professionals using oxygen in acute out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings.

[German S3 Guideline - Oxygen Therapy in the Acute Care of Adult Patients]. / S3-Leitlinie Sauerstoff in der Akuttherapie beim Erwachsenen.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is a drug with specific biochemical and physiologic properties, a range of effective doses and may have side effects. In 2015, 14 % of over 55 000 hospital patients in the UK were using oxygen. 42 % of patients received this supplemental oxygen without a valid prescription. Healthcare professionals are frequently uncertain about the relevance of hypoxemia and have low awareness about the risks of hyperoxemia. Numerous randomized controlled trials about targets of oxygen therapy have been published in recent years. A national guideline is urgently needed. METHODS: A S3-guideline was developed and published within the Program for National Disease Management Guidelines (AWMF) with participation of 10 medical associations. Literature search was performed until Feb 1st 2021 to answer 10 key questions. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) System ("The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used to classify types of studies in terms of validity. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used and for assessing the quality of evidence and for grading guideline recommendation and a formal consensus-building process was performed. RESULTS: The guideline includes 34 evidence-based recommendations about indications, prescription, monitoring and discontinuation of oxygen therapy in acute care. The main indication for O2 therapy is hypoxemia. In acute care both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia should be avoided. Hyperoxemia also seems to be associated with increased mortality, especially in patients with hypercapnia. The guideline provides recommended target oxygen saturation for acute medicine without differentiating between diagnoses. Target ranges for oxygen saturation are depending on ventilation status risk for hypercapnia. The guideline provides an overview of available oxygen delivery systems and includes recommendations for their selection based on patient safety and comfort. CONCLUSION: This is the first national guideline on the use of oxygen in acute care. It addresses healthcare professionals using oxygen in acute out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings. The guideline will be valid for 3 years until June 30, 2024.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity.  We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.  We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet.  Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo  We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies.  All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution.  New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics.  Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence).    Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids  We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to  adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants).  There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable.  We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

Bringing two worlds closer together: a critical analysis of an integrated approach to guideline development and quality assurance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives. METHODS: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants. RESULTS: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. DISCUSSION: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.

Screening, Management and Delivery in Twin Pregnancy. / Überwachung und Betreuung von Zwillingsschwangerschaften (AWMF 015-087 S2e-Leitlinie).

The following AWMF guideline (DGGG/AGG & DEGUM responsible) deals with the diagnosis, screening and management of twins as well as the timing and mode of birth.Twin pregnancies can be classified as dichorionic diamniotic (DC DA), monochorionic diamniotic (MC DA) and monochorionic monoamniotic (MC MA) which are always monochorionic.Twin pregnancies can be concordant (both twins are affected) or discordant (only one twin is affected) for chromosomal defects, malformations, growth restriction and hemodynamic disorders.Chorionicity is the prognostically most significant parameter. Monochorial twins have significantly higher risks of intrauterine morbidity and mortality compared to dichorial twins.In particular, general aspects of twin pregnancies such as dating, determination of chorionicity and amnionicity, the labeling of twin fetuses and the perinatal switch phenomenon are discussed.Routine monitoring of MC and DC twin pregnancies with ultrasound at 11-13+ 6 weeks of gestation for chromosomal defects, invasive prenatal diagnosis, first-trimester NT or CRL discrepancies, early diagnosis of fetal anatomical defects, and management of twins with abnormalities, including selective fetocide, is described.Second trimester screening and management for preterm birth, intrauterine selective growth restriction (sFGR), classification of monochorial twins with sFGR, and management of the surviving twin after the death of the co-twin are described.Complications exclusively affecting MC twins include Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS) with the important topics screening, prognosis, complications of laser therapy, timing of delivery, risks for brain abnormalities and delayed neurological development, Twin Anemia-Polycythemia Sequence (TAPS) and Twin Reversed Arterial Perfusion (TRAP) Sequence. This also includes MC MA twins as well as conjoined twins.Finally, the birth mode and time for DC and MC twin pregnancies are described.The information is summarized in 62 recommendations for action, 4 tables and 8 illustrations with comprehensive background texts.The guideline is an international guideline adaptation (ISUOG, NICE) as well as a systematic literature search and is up-to-date.

[Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure : Short version of the S3 guideline]. / Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen : Kurzversion der AWMF-S3-Leitlinie.

In Germany, a remarkable increase regarding the usage of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) systems has been observed in recent years with approximately 3000 ECLS/ECMO implantations annually since 2015. Despite the widespread use of ECLS/ECMO, evidence-based recommendations or guidelines are still lacking regarding indications, contraindications, limitations and management of ECMO/ECLS patients. Therefore in 2015, the German Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS) registered the multidisciplinary S3 guideline "Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure" to develop evidence-based recommendations for ECMO/ECLS systems according to the requirements of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). Although the clinical application of ECMO/ECLS represents the main focus, the presented guideline also addresses structural and economic issues. Experts from 17 German, Austrian and Swiss scientific societies and a patients' organization, guided by the GSTCVS, completed the project in February 2021. In this report, we present a summary of the methodological concept and tables displaying the recommendations for each chapter of the guideline.

[Background, Necessity and Methodology of the S3 Guideline "Perioperative Management of Gastrointestinal Tumours (POMGAT)"]. / Hintergrund, Notwendigkeit und Methodik der S3-Leitlinie "Perioperatives Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT)".

Malignancies are among the most common diseases, especially in old age, and are responsible for 25% of all deaths in Germany. Especially carcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract can be cured in most cases only through extensive surgery with significant morbidity. About 25 years ago, the multimodal, perioperative Fast Track (FT) concept for reducing postoperative complications was introduced and additional elements were added in the following years. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that adherence to the key elements of more than 70% leads to reduction in postoperative adverse events as well as a shorter hospital stay and could be associated with an improved oncological outcome. Despite the high level of awareness and the proven advantages of the FT concept, the implementation and maintenance of the measures is difficult and results in an adherence of only 20 - 40%. There are many reasons for this: In addition to a lack of interdisciplinary and interprofessional cooperation and the time consuming and extended logistical efforts, limited human resources are often listed as one of the main causes. We took these aspects as an opportunity and started to develop a S3 guideline for perioperative treatment to accelerate the recovery of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. By creating a consensus- and evidence-based, multidisciplinary guideline, many of the problems listed above could probably be solved by optimising and standardising interdisciplinary care, which is particularly important in a setting with many different disciplines and their competing interests. Furthermore, the standardisation of the perioperative procedures will reduce the time and logistical effort. The presentation of the evidence allows increased transparency and justifies the additional personnel expenditure on hospital medicine and health insurance companies. In addition, the evidence-based quality indicators generated during the development of the guideline make it possible to include perioperative standards in certification systems and thus to measure and check the quality of perioperative care.

[Quality Assurance in Intensive Care Medicine: Peer Reviews and Quality Indicators]. / Qualitätssicherung in der Intensivmedizin: Peer Reviews und Qualitätsindikatoren.

Goal-oriented quality management in health care is an essential tool to provide good medical practice and treatment. It aims at a patient-centred case management with high transparency of structural and clinical process aspects, as well as patient outcome. An objective and comprehensive description of clinical care includes the use of quality indicators. However, the appliance of those indicators falls short, when the evaluation of quality is not followed by recommendations for improvement.As a highly specified area in health care provided in hospitals, intensive care medicine is characterized by complex interprofessional and multidisciplinary approaches. In addition, critical care units are an expensive resource. In order to provide an economic and yet high quality patient care, treatments should be evidence-based, and cost-drivers must be analysed for their effectiveness on patient-outcome.Various methods of quality assurance allow for a formative evaluation of intensive care units by peer reviews, including the use of quality indicators. This article focuses on peer review systems currently applied in German hospitals, and particularly describes quality indicators that have been established by DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine). It also addresses the need for a professional dialogue between equal partners. This has to accompany each peer review that aims at an improvement in quality of critical patient care.

Approaches of integrating the development of guidelines and quality indicators: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and quality indicators (for example as part of a quality assurance scheme) aim to improve health care delivery and health outcomes. Ideally, the development of quality indicators should be grounded in evidence-based, trustworthy guideline recommendations. However, anecdotally, guidelines and quality assurance schemes are developed independently, by different groups of experts who employ different methodologies. We conducted an extension and update of a previous systematic review to identify, describe and evaluate approaches to the integrated development of guidelines and related quality indicators. METHODS: On May 24th, 2019 we searched in Medline, Embase and CINAHL and included studies if they reported a methodological approach to guideline-based quality indicator development and were published in English, French, or German. RESULTS: Out of 16,034 identified records, we included 17 articles that described a method to integrate guideline recommendations development and quality indicator development. Added to the 13 method articles from original systematic review we included a total 30 method articles. We did not find any evaluation studies. In most approaches, guidelines were a source of evidence to inform the quality indicator development. The criteria to select recommendations (e.g. level of evidence or strength of the recommendation) and to generate, select and assess quality indicators varied widely. We found methodological approaches that linked guidelines and quality indicator development explicitly, however none of the articles reported a conceptual framework that fully integrated quality indicator development into the guideline process or where quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: In our systematic review we found approaches which explicitly linked guidelines with quality indicator development, nevertheless none of the articles reported a comprehensive and well-defined conceptual framework which integrated quality indicator development fully into the guideline development process.

[Method report of the second update of the guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain]. / Leitlinienreport der zweiten Aktualisierung der S3-Leitlinie "Langzeitanwendung von Opioiden bei nicht-tumorbedingten Schmerzen ­ LONTS".

BACKGROUND: The update of the German S3 guidelines on long-term opioid therapy of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), the LONTS (AWMF registration number 145/003), was scheduled for February 2020 due to the expiry of the validity period. METHODS: The guidelines were updated by 28 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations under the coordination of the German Pain Society and the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). RESULTS: A systematic literature search was performed in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Scopus databases from October 2013 to December 2018. The previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of opioids in CNPC syndromes with a study duration of ≥4 weeks were updated. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009 classification system. The formulation and strength of recommendations was established in a multistep formalized consensus procedure, in accordance with AWMF rules and standards. The guidelines were reviewed by four experts not involved in the development of the guidelines. The public was given the opportunity to comment on the guidelines. The guidelines were approved by the executive boards of the societies that were engaged in development of the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The guidelines will be published in several forms: complete and short scientific versions as well as clinical practice and patient versions.