Understanding contextual and practical factors to inform WHO recommendations on using chest imaging to monitor COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae: a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' perspective.

BACKGROUND: A recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO) was issued about the use of chest imaging to monitor pulmonary sequelae following recovery from COVID-19. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perspective of key stakeholders to understand their valuation of the outcome of the proposition, preferences for the modalities of chest imaging, acceptability, feasibility, impact on equity and practical considerations influencing the implementation of using chest imaging. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design using in-depth interviews approach. Key stakeholders included adult patients who recovered from the acute illness of COVID-19, and providers caring for those patients. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) conceptual framework was used to guide data collection of contextual and practical factors related to monitoring using imaging. Data analysis was based on the framework thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: 33 respondents, including providers and patients, were recruited from 15 different countries. Participants highly valued the ability to monitor progression and resolution of long-term sequelae but recommended the avoidance of overuse of imaging. Their preferences for the imaging modalities were recorded along with pros and cons. Equity concerns were reported across countries (e.g., access to resources) and within countries (e.g., disadvantaged groups lacked access to insurance). Both providers and patients accepted the use of imaging, some patients were concerned about affordability of the test. Facilitators included post- recovery units and protocols. Barriers to feasibility included low number of specialists in some countries, access to imaging tests among elderly living in nursing homes, experience of poor coordination of care, emotional exhaustion, and transportation challenges driving to a monitoring site. CONCLUSION: We were able to demonstrate that there is a high value and acceptability using imaging but there were factors influencing feasibility, equity and some practical considerations associated with implementation. We had a few suggestions to be considered by the expert panel in the formulation of the guideline to facilitate its implementation such as using validated risk score predictive tools for lung complications to recommend the appropriate imaging modality and complementary pulmonary function test.

Characteristics and impact of interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with guideline recommendations for breast cancer: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients. Suboptimal compliance with breast cancer guideline recommendations remains frequent, and has been associated with a decreased survival. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize and determine the impact of available interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with CPGs recommendations in breast cancer healthcare. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and primary studies in PubMed and Embase (from inception to May 2021). We included experimental and observational studies reporting on the use of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and critical appraisal was conducted by one reviewer, and cross-checked by a second reviewer. Using the same approach, we synthesized the characteristics and the effects of the interventions by type of intervention (according to the EPOC taxonomy), and applied the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 35 primary studies reporting on 24 different interventions. Most frequently described interventions consisted in computerized decision support systems (12 studies); educational interventions (seven), audit and feedback (two), and multifaceted interventions (nine). There is low quality evidence that educational interventions targeted to healthcare professionals may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. There is moderate quality evidence that reminder systems for healthcare professionals improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. There is low quality evidence that multifaceted interventions may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. The effectiveness of the remaining types of interventions identified have not been evaluated with appropriate study designs for such purpose. There is very limited data on the costs of implementing these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs recommendations are available, and most of them show positive effects. More robust trials are needed to strengthen the available evidence base concerning their efficacy. Gathering data on the costs of implementing the proposed interventions is needed to inform decisions about their widespread implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42018092884 (PROSPERO).

Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice. OBJECTIVE: These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer. METHODS: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis.

Joint 2022 European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for the prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice. OBJECTIVE: These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer. METHODS: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;▪:1-31).

GRADE guidance 35: update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to rate the certainty domain of imprecision is presently not fully operationalized for rating down by two levels and when different baseline risk or uncertainty in these risks are considered. In addition, there are scenarios in which lowering the certainty of evidence by three levels for imprecision is more appropriate than lowering it by two levels. In this article, we conceptualize and operationalize rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels for imprecision using the contextualized GRADE approaches and making decisions. METHODS: Through iterative discussions and refinement in online meetings and through email communication, we developed draft guidance to rating the certainty of evidence down by up to three levels based on examples. The lead authors revised the approach according to the feedback and the comments received during these meetings and developed GRADE guidance for how to apply it. We presented a summary of the results to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meeting for feedback in October 2021 (approximately 80 people) where the approach was formally approved. RESULTS: This guidance provides GRADE's novel approach for the considerations about rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels based on serious, very serious and extremely serious concerns. The approach includes identifying or defining thresholds for health outcomes that correspond to trivial or none, small, moderate or large effects and using them to rate imprecision. It facilitates the use of evidence to decision frameworks and also provides guidance for how to address imprecision about implausible large effects and trivial or no effects using the concept of the 'review information size' and for varying baseline risks. The approach is illustrated using practical examples, an online calculator and graphical displays and can be applied to dichotomous and continuous outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this GRADE guidance article, we provide updated guidance for how to rate imprecision using the partially and fully contextualized GRADE approaches for making recommendations or decisions, considering alternate baseline risks and for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: March 2022 update on the use of anticoagulation in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: January 2022 update on the use of therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation in acutely ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. RESULTS: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness.

Using Explicit Thresholds were valuable for judging Benefits and Harms in partially contextualized GRADE Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Guideline panels must assess the magnitude of health benefits and harms to develop sensible recommendations. However, they rarely use explicit thresholds. In this paper we report on the piloting and the use thresholds for benefits and harms. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We piloted the use of thresholds in a Chilean COVID-19 living guideline. For each of the critical outcomes, we asked panelists to suggest values of the thresholds for large, moderate, small, or trivial or no effect. We collected this information through a survey and an on-line discussion. RESULTS: Twelve panelists decided on thresholds for three critical outcomes (mortality, need for mechanical ventilation and serious adverse events). For all outcomes, an absolute risk reduction was considered larger with more than 50 events, moderate with less than 50 events, small with less than 25 events, and trivial with less than 10 events. Having these a priori thresholds in place significantly impacted on the development of recommendations. CONCLUSION: Explicit thresholds were a valuable addition to the judgment of the certainty in the evidence, to decide the direction and strength of the recommendation and to evaluate the need for update. We believe this is a line of research worth perusing.

Defining decision thresholds for judgments on health benefits and harms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a protocol for a randomised methodological study (GRADE-THRESHOLD).

INTRODUCTION: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and similar Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks require its users to judge how substantial the effects of interventions are on desirable and undesirable people-important health outcomes. However, decision thresholds (DTs) that could help understand the magnitude of intervention effects and serve as reference for interpretation of findings are not yet available.The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use DTs for EtD judgments about the magnitude of health benefits and harms. We hypothesise that approximate DTs could have the ability to discriminate between the existing four categories of EtD judgments (Trivial, Small, Moderate, Large), support panels of decision-makers in their work, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a methodological randomised controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the DTs. We will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, we will investigate the validity of our DTs by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that our DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this study as a quality improvement study and determined that it requires no further consent. Survey participants will be required to read a consent statement in order to participate in this study at the beginning of the trial. This statement reads: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to identify indicative DTs that could assist users of the GRADE EtD frameworks in making judgments. Your input will be used in determining these indicative thresholds. By completing this survey, you provide consent that the anonymised data collected will be used for the research study and to be summarised in aggregate in publication and electronic tools. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05237635.

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106181.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: July 2021 update on postdischarge thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who are discharged from the hospital and who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: This recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials assessing the role of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge.

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for venous thromboembolism: a systematic review.

Guideline developers consider cost-effectiveness evidence in decision making to determine value for money. This consideration in the guideline development process can be informed either by formal and dedicated economic evaluations or by systematic reviews of existing studies. To inform the American Society of Hematology guideline on the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), we conducted a systematic review focused on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for VTE within the guideline scope. We systematically searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry; summarized; and critically appraised the economic evidence on diagnostic strategies for VTE. We identified 49 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with 26 on pulmonary embolism (PE) and 24 on deep vein thrombosis (DVT). For the diagnosis of PE, strategies including d-dimer to exclude PE were cost-effective compared with strategies without d-dimer testing. The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) in relation to ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan was inconclusive. CTPA or V/Q scan following ultrasound or d-dimer results could be cost-effective or even cost saving. For DVT, studies supporting strategies with d-dimer and/or ultrasound were cost-effective, supporting the recommendation that for patients at low (unlikely) VTE risk, using d-dimer as the initial test reduces the need for diagnostic imaging. Our systematic review informed the American Society of Hematology guideline recommendations about d-dimer, V/Q scan and CTPA for PE diagnosis, and d-dimer and ultrasound for DVT diagnosis.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: May 2021 update on the use of intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 3 patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process by performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 5 March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update on guidelines published in February 2021. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. CONCLUSIONS: This recommendation was based on low certainty in the evidence, which underscores the need for additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients. Other key research priorities include better evidence regarding predictors of thrombosis and bleeding risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and the impact of nonanticoagulant therapies (eg, antiviral agents, corticosteroids) on thrombotic risk.

GRADE Notes 2: Criteria for searching non-randomized or indirect evidence should be defined early in the guideline production process.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss two alternative approaches for complementing the body of direct evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) when it is judged insufficient from a guideline panel making recommendations. The approaches included expanding the evidence's body to non-randomises studies on the population of interest or to RCTs on indirect populations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this report, we adopt the perspective of an evidence review team developing guidelines following the GRADE approach. Our experience is based on the development of two evidence-based guidelines promoted by The Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) and focusing on diagnosis and treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in children/adolescents and adults. RESULTS: We left panel members deciding case by case whether the direct evidence from RCTs was sufficient or not and indicating which alternative to implement. This strategy presented unanticipated challenges both from an organizational and methodological standpoint. CONCLUSION: We suggest an early-stage production of a research protocol to define the criteria for expanding the body of evidence. These criteria should be informed by considerations around the certainty in the evidence, the clinical applicability of the results, feasibility and conflict of interest.

A modeling approach to derive baseline risk estimates for GRADE recommendations: Concepts, development, and results of its application to the American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines on prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop an approach that can be used where baseline risk estimates that are directly applicable to prioritized patient-important outcomes are not available from published studies. STUDY DESIGN: The McMaster University GRADE Centre and the ASH guideline panel for the prevention of VTE in surgical patients developed a modeling approach based on explicit assumptions about the distribution of symptoms, anatomical location, and severity of VTE events. RESULTS: We applied the approach to derive modeled estimates of baseline risk. These estimates were used to calculated absolute measures of anticipated effects that informed the discussion of the evidence and the formulation of 30 guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: Our approach can assist guideline developers facing a lack of information about baseline risk estimates that directly apply to outcomes of interest. The use of modeled estimates increases transparency in the process and makes the baseline risk used by guideline experts explicit during their decision-making.

Consideration of antimicrobial resistance and contextual factors in infectious disease guidelines: a systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines that include antimicrobial recommendations should explicitly consider contextual factors that influence antimicrobial resistance and their downstream effects on resistance selection. The objectives were to analyse (1) how, and to what extent, tuberculosis, gonorrhoea and respiratory tract infection guidelines are considering antimicrobial resistance; (2) are of acceptable quality and (3) if they can be easily contextualised to fit the needs of specific populations and health systems. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from 1 January 2007 to 7 June 2019 for tuberculosis, gonorrhoea and respiratory tract infection guidelines published in English. We also searched guideline databases, key websites and reference lists. We identified guidelines and recommendations that considered contextual factors including antimicrobial resistance, values, resource use, equity, acceptability and feasibility. We assessed quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool focusing on the domains scope and purpose, rigour of development, and editorial independence. RESULTS: We screened 10 365 records, of which 74 guidelines met inclusion criteria. Of these guidelines, 39% (n=29/74) met acceptable quality scores. Approximately two-thirds of recommendations considered antimicrobial resistance at the population and/or outcome level. Five of the 29 guidelines reported all factors required for recommendation contextualisation. Equity was the least considered across guidelines. DISCUSSION: Relatively few guidelines for highly prevalent infectious diseases are considering resistance at a local level, and many do not consider contextual factors necessary for appropriate antimicrobial use. Improving the quality of guidelines targeting specific regional areas is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020145235.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available.

Impact of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on "restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors" (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.35 to - 0.07, moderate certainty), "hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior" (SMD - 0.67, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.42, moderate certainty), "social communication, social interaction" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.16, moderate certainty), "emotional dysregulation/irritability" (SMD - 0.71, 95% CI - 0.98 to - 0.43, low certainty), "global functioning, global improvement" (SMD - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.33, low certainty), "obsessions, compulsions" (SMD - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on "self-harm" (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), "anxiety" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence-An overview in the context of health decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to present the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) conceptual approach to the assessment of certainty of evidence from modeling studies (i.e., certainty associated with model outputs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Expert consultations and an international multidisciplinary workshop informed development of a conceptual approach to assessing the certainty of evidence from models within the context of systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and health care decisions. The discussions also clarified selected concepts and terminology used in the GRADE approach and by the modeling community. Feedback from experts in a broad range of modeling and health care disciplines addressed the content validity of the approach. RESULTS: Workshop participants agreed that the domains determining the certainty of evidence previously identified in the GRADE approach (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, reporting bias, magnitude of an effect, dose-response relation, and the direction of residual confounding) also apply when assessing the certainty of evidence from models. The assessment depends on the nature of model inputs and the model itself and on whether one is evaluating evidence from a single model or multiple models. We propose a framework for selecting the best available evidence from models: 1) developing de novo, a model specific to the situation of interest, 2) identifying an existing model, the outputs of which provide the highest certainty evidence for the situation of interest, either "off-the-shelf" or after adaptation, and 3) using outputs from multiple models. We also present a summary of preferred terminology to facilitate communication among modeling and health care disciplines. CONCLUSION: This conceptual GRADE approach provides a framework for using evidence from models in health decision-making and the assessment of certainty of evidence from a model or models. The GRADE Working Group and the modeling community are currently developing the detailed methods and related guidance for assessing specific domains determining the certainty of evidence from models across health care-related disciplines (e.g., therapeutic decision-making, toxicology, environmental health, and health economics).