Two Years of Experience and Methodology of Korean COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guideline Development.

BACKGROUND: In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration. METHODS: The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations. RESULTS: An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3-4 months. CONCLUSION: We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media. Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.

Exploring the use and impact of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: where to from here?

OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing, maintaining, and disseminating living guidelines and decision support tools (clinical flowcharts) for the care of people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since 2020. Living guidelines, a form of living evidence, are a relatively new approach; hence, more work is required to determine how to optimize their use to inform practice, policy, and decision-making and to explore implementation, uptake, and impact implications. An update of an earlier impact evaluation was conducted to understand sustained awareness and use of the guidelines; the factors that facilitate the widespread adoption of the guidelines and to explore the perceived strengths and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods impact evaluation was conducted. Surveys collected both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Participants included Australian healthcare practitioners providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and people involved in policy-making. Data were collected on awareness, use, impact, strengths, and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines and flow charts. RESULTS: A total of 148 participants completed the survey and 21 people were interviewed between January and March 2022. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and more than 75% of participants reported that the guidelines were used within their workplace. Participants described the Taskforce website and guidelines as trustworthy, valuable, and reliable sources of up-to-date evidence-based information. The evaluation highlighted the varied ways the guidelines were being used across a range of settings and the diverse impacts they have from those at a clinical level to impacts at a policy level. Barriers to and enablers of impact and uptake of the guideline were explored. CONCLUSION: This evaluation highlights the value of living guidelines during a pandemic when the evidence base is rapidly changing and expanding. It presents useful understanding of the ways clinicians and others use living evidence to inform their clinical practice and decision-making and the diverse impacts the guidelines are having around Australia.

Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes. RESULTS: The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.

Prioritization of clinical questions for the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis.

AIM: Living guidelines aim to reduce delays in translating new knowledge into practice by updating individual recommendations as soon as relevant new evidence emerges. We surveyed members of the Australian Rheumatology Association (ARA) to develop a list of priority questions for the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis (ALG) and to explore clinicians' use of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: An electronic survey of ARA members was performed in two phases. The first survey contained questions about current guideline use and beliefs and invited participants to submit at least three questions relevant to the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the second round, participants selected 10 questions they considered to be the highest priority from the collated list and ranked them in priority order. The sum of ranks was used to generate a final priority list. RESULTS: There were 115 (21%) and 78 (14%) responses to the first and second survey rounds respectively. 87% of respondents use existing rheumatology guidelines in their usual practice, primarily EULAR guidelines. Most respondents favored the development of Australian rheumatology guidelines. In total, 34 potential recommendation topics were identified and ranked in order of priority. CONCLUSION: A list of 34 clinical questions about RA management, ranked in order of importance by clinicians, has informed the development of the ALG. Similar prioritization exercises in other contexts may permit guidelines to be tailored to the needs of guideline users in their specific context, which may facilitate international collaboration and promote efficient translation of evidence to practice.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 4: search methods and approaches for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the key features of a continual evidence surveillance process that can be implemented for living guidelines and to outline the considerations and trade-offs in adopting different approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the US GRADE Network (USGN) shared their practical experiences of and approaches to establishing surveillance systems for living guidelines. We identified several common components of evidence surveillance and listed the key features and considerations for each component drawn from case studies, highlighting differences with standard guidelines. RESULTS: We developed guidance that covers the initial information needed to support decisions around suitability for living mode and the practical considerations in setting up continual search surveillance systems (search frequency, sources to search, use of automation, reporting the search, ongoing resources, and evaluation). The case studies draw on our experiences with developing guidelines for COVID-19, as well as for other conditions such as stroke and diabetes, and cover a range of practical approaches, including the use of automation. CONCLUSION: This paper highlights different approaches to continual evidence surveillance that can be implemented in living guidelines.

Weekly updating of guideline recommendations was feasible: the Australian National COVID-19 clinical evidence Taskforce.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how quickly evidence was incorporated into the Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 during the first 12 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For each study concerning drug therapies included in the guideline from April 3, 2020 to April 1, 2021, we extracted the publication date of the study, and the guideline version the study was included in. We analyzed two subgroups of studies as follows: those published in high impact factor journals and those with 100 or more participants. RESULTS: In the first year, we published 37 major versions of the guidelines, incorporating 129 studies that investigated 48 drug therapies informing 115 recommendations. The median time from first publication of a study to incorporation in the guideline was 27 days (interquartile range [IQR], 16 to 44), ranging from 9 to 234 days. For the 53 studies in the highest impact factor journals, the median was 20 days (IQR 15 to 30), and for the 71 studies with 100 or more participants the median was 22 days (IQR 15 to 36). CONCLUSION: Developing and sustaining living guidelines where evidence is rapidly incorporated is a resource- and time-intensive undertaking; however, this study demonstrates that it is feasible, even over a long period.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods. RESULTS: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode. CONCLUSION: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews (SRs) have become a central tool for evidence-based health care over the last 30 years. The number of SRs being published has increased steadily. However, concerns have been raised regarding the duplication of work, methodological flaws and the currency of many systematic reviews, also in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer a new approach to updating systematic reviews, particularly in high-priority research fields that face the challenge of dynamically evolving and sometimes uncertain evidence. Continual updates serve to ensure that LSRs remain current and methodologically rigorous. As a new element of the evidence ecosystem, LSRs can inform living guidelines and recommendations, user-adapted formats, decisions at the patient and system level as well as gaps in primary research.

Framework for a living systematic review and meta-analysis for the surgical treatment of bladder cancer: introducing EVIglance to urology.

Background: Knowledge of current and ongoing studies is critical for identifying research gaps and enabling evidence-based decisions for individualized treatment. However, the increasing number of scientific publications poses challenges for healthcare providers and patients in all medical fields to stay updated with the latest evidence. To overcome these barriers, we aim to develop a living systematic review and open-access online evidence map of surgical therapy for bladder cancer (BC), including meta-analyses. Methods: Following the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement, a systematic literature search on uro-oncological therapy in BC will be performed across various literature databases. Within the scope of a meta-analysis and living systematic review, relevant randomized controlled trials will be identified. Data extraction and quantitative analysis will be conducted, along with a critical appraisal of the quality and risk of bias of each study. The available research evidence will be entered into an open-access framework (www.evidencemap.surgery) and will also be accessible via the EVIglance app. Regular semi-automatic updates will enable the implementation of a real-living review concept and facilitate resource-efficient screening. Discussion: A regularly updated evidence map provides professionals and patients with an open-access knowledge base on the current state of research, allowing for decision-making based on recent evidence. It will help identify an oversupply of evidence, thus avoiding redundant work. Furthermore, by identifying research gaps, new hypotheses can be formulated more precisely, enabling planning, determination of sample size, and definition of endpoints for future trials.

A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic reviews and evidence syntheses.

Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a 'living' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the review's research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.

Feasibility of national living guideline methods: The Australian Stroke Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Maintaining clinical guideline currency has been one challenge to traditional guideline development. This paper describes the methods used to maintain a large national guideline for stroke management. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines are developed to meet Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) standards. Monthly surveillance is conducted for new systematic reviews and randomised controlled studies. Included studies undergo data extraction followed by preparation of updated evidence-to-decision frameworks which are used to inform updates, or development of new recommendations. Small writing groups made up of clinical experts and those with lived experience review and agree on changes, which are finally reviewed by a multidisciplinary Guidelines Steering Group. Draft changes are developed and published using the online MAGICapp platform, with dissemination and promotion via traditional methods as well as social media. RESULTS: Each month approximately 350 abstracts are considered, covering 96 clinical topics and taking on average 16 h to review. There have been four major guideline updates covering 34 new and updated recommendations. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use 'living' methods to maintain the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Further work is now needed to understand the impact of living guidelines.

Quantifying absolute benefit for adjuvant treatment options in renal cell carcinoma: A living interactive systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess comparative effectiveness of adjuvant therapies for renal cell carcinoma and quantify the absolute benefit of adjuvant treatments by clinicopathological risk groups. METHODS: This 'living' review was conducted using Living Interactive Evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. RESULTS: The 'living' results are available on an interactive website. This network meta-analysis, including six RCTs with 7525 participants, showed that pembrolizumab (rank 1) significantly improved disease-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib but not when compared to pazopanib, and axitinib. The risk of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events was increased with pembrolizumab as compared to placebo and axitinib but not when compared to sunitinib. The absolute benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab increases substantially with larger tumor size, nodal positivity and higher Leibovich scores. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that pembrolizumab delays disease progression compared to sunitinib. A risk-adapted strategy should be used in patients undergoing consideration for treatment with adjuvant pembrolizumab.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints). RESULTS: We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4-57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth. CONCLUSION: There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.

Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identify currently methodological aspects proposed for planning, conducting, and reporting living evidence (LE) synthesis. Develop a preliminary checklist of key LE synthesis elements. METHODS: A survey of methodological articles describing or analyzing methods for the design, conduction, or reporting of LE synthesis. RESULTS: Twelve methodological articles were identified and analyzed. Key elements were related to: i) definition of LE and characteristics of LE synthesis, ii) methods and tools for the living process, iii) new evidence integration (methods and considerations), iv) updates dissemination and publication, v) revisiting living parameters, and vi) protocol considerations for LE synthesis. CONCLUSION: This survey displays basic methodological concepts that can drive the development of LE synthesis and identifies specific aspects with opportunities for development. The potential impact of the LE approach calls for a change in the current evidence synthesis updating processes to more open, collaborative, transparent, and efficient systems. LE approaches also challenge journal editors to shift toward more efficient processes for synthesis update dissemination, which minimizes the risks of reliability of published information.

Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies: a living systematic review (protocol).

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of CAR-T therapy in the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies, in comparison with other current therapies. Design: A living systematic review. Methods: We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of CAR-T therapy versus other active treatments, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, best supportive care or any other intervention in patients with hematologic malignancies. Non-randomized primary studies will be searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. Efficacy measures will include overall survival rate, overall response rate, complete response/remission (CR) rate, partial response/remission (PR) rate, relapse from CR, progression-free survival, and time from CAR-T infusion to transplantation. Safety measures will include serious adverse events, the incidence of cytokine release syndrome, graft-versus-host disease, neurotoxicity, and total adverse events. Quality of life will also be assessed. Meta-analyses will be carried out to summarize the results. We will apply the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available until there is solid evidence to respond to the review objective. We will resubmit it for publication every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.

Research has been carried out over the last few years to assess the efficacy and usefulness of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies. The present review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of CAR-T therapy in the management of patients suffering hematologic malignancies. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that answer our research question or non-randomized primary studies, in case we found no direct evidence of RCT, will be retrieved. The Epistemonikos database will be used for the identification of potentially eligible studies. We will identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. We will evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of the evidence will be determined with specific tools. We will monitor the newly published evidence every two months, searching for relevant studies that could indicate changes in the available evidence. This monitoring process will last until a high certainty of evidence is reached or at least 36 months.

Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. METHODS: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. RESULTS: The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.

Implementing living evidence to inform health decisions: A strategy for building capacity in health sector (Protocol).

Every day important healthcare decisions are made with incomplete or outdated information about the effects of the healthcare interventions available, what delivers the best value for the health system and where more research is needed. It is necessary to invest in strategies that allow access to reliable and updated evidence on which to base health decisions. The objective is to develop and evaluate a strategy for building the capacity among different actors of a country's health system to implement the model known as "Living Evidence" [LE] in the evidence synthesis and dissemination of knowledge transfer [KT] products to inform health decisions. The study will involve professional members of health system organizations in charge of developing KT products to inform health decisions. The project will be developed in three complementary phases: 1) LE-implementation framework development through review of the literature, brainstorming meetings, user testing, and expert consultation; 2) training in LE tools and strategies; 3) developing LE synthesis for KT products by applying the framework to real-life diverse situations. To achieve the capacity-building strategy assessment goal, several surveys and interviews will take place during the process to assess: 1) the LE-implementation framework for the incorporation of LE synthesis in the development of KT products; 2) the training workshops; 3) the whole capacity-building strategy used for health system organizations be able of implementing the LE as part of the KT products they regularly produce. The expected results are an effective capacity-building strategy for health system organizations to implement the living evidence model in different KT products; a LE-implementation framework to be applicable to any country or region to incorporate LE in the KT products; LE synthesis for KT products directly applicable to the real-setting situations; integration of Epistemonikos-L.OVE platform for keeping the LE process in the development and updating of KT products.