[Development of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating guideline recommendations: The AGIL criteria]. / Entwicklung von Kriterien für die prospektive Einschätzung des Aktualisierungsbedarfs von Leitlinienempfehlungen: AGIL-Kriterien.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guideline and vaccination recommendations should continuously be updated to appropriately support health care decisions. However, resources for updating guidelines are often limited. The aim of this project was to develop a list of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline or vaccination recommendations, which can be applied from the time a guideline or guideline update is finalised. METHODS: In this article we describe the development of the AGIL criteria (Assessment of Guidelines for Updating Recommendations). The AGIL criteria were developed by experienced scientists and experts in the field of guideline development in a multi-step process. The five steps included: 1) development of an initial list of criteria by the project team; 2) online survey of guideline experts on the initial version of the criteria list; 3) revision of the criteria list based on the results of the online survey; 4) workshop on the criteria list at the EbM Congress 2023; 5) creation of version 1.0 of the AGIL criteria based on the workshop results. RESULTS: The initial list included the following three criteria: 1) relevance of the question 2) availability of new relevant evidence, and 3) impact of potentially new evidence. The response rate of the online survey for fully completed questionnaires was 31.0% (N=195; 630 guideline experts were contacted by email). For 90.3% (n=176) of the respondents, the criteria list included all essential aspects for assessing the need for updating guideline recommendations. More than three quarters of respondents rated the importance of the three criteria as "very important" or "important" (criteria 1-3: 75.3%, 86.1%, 85.2%) and - with the exception of criterion 1 - comprehensibility as "very comprehensible" or "comprehensible" (criteria 1-3: 58.4%, 75.9%, 78.5%). The results of the online survey and the workshop generally confirmed the three criteria with their two sub-questions. The incorporation of all feedback resulted in the AGIL criteria (version 1.0), recapping: 1) relevance of the question regarding a) PICO components and b) other factors, e.g. epidemiological aspects; 2) availability of new evidence a) on health-related benefits and harms and b) on other decision factors, e.g. feasibility, acceptability; 3) impact of new evidence a) on the certainty of evidence on which the recommendation is based and b) on the present recommendation, e.g. DISCUSSION: The moderate response rate of the online survey may have limited its representativeness. Nevertheless, we consider the response rate to be satisfactory in this research context. The inclusion of many experts in the online survey and the EbM Congress workshop is a strength of the project and supports the quality of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The AGIL criteria provide a structured guidance for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline recommendations and other evidence-based recommendations. The implementation and evaluation of the AGIL criteria 1.0 in a field test is planned.

Guidance on how to efficiently find, choose, and use available systematic reviews was developed.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians and authors of clinical guidelines or patient information with practical guidance on searching and choosing systematic reviews(s) (SR[s]) and, where adequate, on making use of SR(s). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: At the German conference of the Evidence-Based Medicine Network (EbM Network) a workshop on the topic was held to identify the most important areas where guidance for practice appears necessary. After the workshop, we established working groups. These included SR users with different backgrounds (eg, information specialists, epidemiologists) and working areas. Each working group developed and consented a draft guidance based on their expert knowledge and experiences. The results were presented to the entire group and finalized in an iterative process. RESULTS: We developed a practical guidance that answers questions that usually arise when choosing and using SR(s). (1) How to efficiently find high-quality SRs? (2) How to choose the most appropriate SR? (3) What to do if no SR of sufficient quality could be identified? In addition, we developed an algorithm that links these steps and accounts for their interaction. The resulting guidance is primarily directed at clinicians and developers of clinical practice guidelines or patient information resources. CONCLUSION: We suggest practical guidance for making the best use of SRs when answering a specific research question. The guidance may contribute to the efficient use of existing SRs. Potential benefits when using existing SRs should be always weighted against potential limitations.