AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

American Academy of Dermatology Guidelines for Managing Atopic Dermatitis.

The American Academy of Dermatology first published a series of guidelines for diagnosing and managing atopic dermatitis in 2014. Twelve clinicians were selected to review, grade, and offer clinical insight on available data regarding the clinical features, symptomology, pathophysiology, education, treatment, and emerging clinical studies on atopic dermatitis (AD). Based on these findings, the AAD released a guideline to streamline information on atopic dermatitis for physicians, recommending using clinical evidence to diagnose and first treating with nonpharmacologic therapies to restore the natural skin barrier. Topical pharmacologic therapies were recommended for improving pruritus and inflammation and newer systemic agents for clinically relevant moderate-to-severe cases. Evidence-based practices were emphasized in comparison to those that lacked therapeutic data. To highlight the emerging evidence and pharmacologic breakthroughs in atopic dermatitis, the AAD produced an updated set of guidelines educating physicians on new agents and their role in treatment. This chapter reviews the AAD guidelines as a tool for managing atopic dermatitis and staying up to date on disease advancements.

Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation supporting European society for medical oncology clinical practice guidelines.

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines are among the most comprehensive and widely used clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) globally. However, the level of scientific evidence supporting ESMO CPG recommendations has not been systematically investigated. This study assessed ESMO CPG levels of evidence (LOE) and grades of recommendations (GOR), as well as their trends over time across various cancer settings. Methods: We manually extracted every recommendation with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) classification from each CPG. We examined the distribution of LOE and GOR in all available ESMO CPG guidelines across different topics and cancer types. Results: Among the 1,823 recommendations in the current CPG, 30% were classified as LOE I, and 43% were classified as GOR A. Overall, there was a slight decrease in LOE I (-2%) and an increase in the proportion of GOR A (+1%) in the current CPG compared to previous versions. The proportion of GOR A recommendations based on higher levels of evidence such as randomized trials (LOE I-II) shows a decrease (71% vs. 63%, p = 0.009) while recommendations based on lower levels of evidence (LOE III-V) show an increase (29% vs. 37%, p = 0.01) between previous and current version. In the current versions, the highest proportion of LOE I (42%) was found in recommendations related to pharmacotherapy, while the highest proportion of GOR A recommendations was found in the areas of pathology (50%) and diagnostic (50%) recommendations. Significant variability in LOE I and GOR A recommendations and their changes over time was observed across different cancer types. Conclusion: One-third of the current ESMO CPG recommendations are supported by the highest level of evidence. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the proportion of LOE I and GOR A recommendations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for cancer patients.

[What conditions should the diagnosis and treatment guidelines meet, to be true clinical practice guidelines based on evidence?] / ¿Qué condiciones deben reunir las guías de diagnóstico y tratamiento para ser verdaderas guías de práctica clinica basadas en la evidencia?

The guides for diagnosis and treatment prepared by scientific medical societies constitute a very useful tool for the professional practice of the specialty. Supported by an updated bibliography, they represent material of enormous value with recommendations from experts on the various topics of the specialty. This article attempts to determine if they could be designed as "Evidence - Based Clinical Practice Guidelines" (CPG BE), for which the stages in their development and the requirements that they reviewed. The CPG BE are a "set of recommendations prepared systematically to help professionals and patients in making decisions about the most appropriate health care, selecting the most appropriate diagnostic and/or therapeutic options to address a problem of health or a specific clinical condition". Their objective is to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of clinical decisions, and they can serve a basis for the development of health policies. The preparation of CPGs represents a complex process, which requires knowledge, experience and resources, both in time and money. Its robustness does not depend on who does it, but on how it is done. This implies the participation of technicians who provide the evaluation of the evidence using the GRADE method and the consideration of cost-effectiveness aspects.

Las guías de diagnóstico y tratamiento elaboradas por las sociedades científicas médicas, constituyen una herramienta muy útil para el ejercicio profesional de la especialidad. Sustentadas en bibliografía actualizada, representan un material de enorme valor con recomendaciones de los expertos en los diversos temas de la especialidad. En el presente artículo se intenta determinar si las mismas podrían ser diseñadas acercándolas lo más estrechamente posible al formato de las Guías de Práctica Clínica Basadas en la Evidencia (GPC-BE), para lo cual se revisan las etapas en su elaboración y los requisitos que deberían cumplir para ser consideradas como tales. Las GPC-BE son un "conjunto de recomendaciones elaboradas de forma sistemática para ayudar a los profesionales y a los pacientes en la toma de decisiones sobre la atención sanitaria más apropiada, seleccionando las opciones diagnósticas y/o terapéuticas más adecuadas en el abordaje de un problema de salud o una condición clínica específica". Su objetivo es mejorar la efectividad, la eficiencia y la seguridad de las decisiones clínicas, y pueden servir de base para la elaboración de políticas de salud. La elaboración de las GPC representa un proceso complejo, que requiere conocimientos, experiencia y recursos tanto en tiempo como en dinero. Su robustez no depende de quienes la realizan, sino de cómo es realizada. Ello implica la participación de técnicos que aporten la evaluación de la evidencia por el método GRADE, y la consideración de aspectos de costo-efectividad.

Methodology for Evidence Evaluation and Reporting of the NAEMSP Trauma Compendium Position Statements.

BACKGROUND: Position statements from national organizations commonly vary in methodology for the evaluation of existing literature and the development of recommendations. Recent national recommendations have highlighted important components for evidence-based guidelines that can be feasibly incorporated in the creation of position statements and their resource documents. We describe the methodology developed to guide the creation of a compendium of 16 trauma-related position statements led by NAEMSP and partner organizations. METHODS: Each position statement group developed trauma-related topic areas, primarily guided by the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework. A structured literature search comprised of search terms aimed to identify relevant EMS and trauma-related scientific publications was performed for each topic area. Resource documents for each position statement included a description of the literature considered in forming recommendations, reported through evidence tables and a narrative description of the available literature. Where evidence was limited, consensus-based recommendations were developed using content experts and reviewed by the NAEMSP Standards and Clinical Practice Committee. CONCLUSION: We report a standardized methodology for literature review and development of recommendations as part of a compendium of trauma-related position statements from NAEMSP and partner organizations. This methodology can serve as a template for future position statements with ongoing refinement.

Revisiting Level of Evidence Ratings in Plastic Surgery: A Call to Action.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine underpins medical and surgical practice, with level of evidence (LOE) being a key aspect that allows clinicians and researchers to better discriminate the methodological context by which studies are conducted and appropriately interpret their conclusions, and more specifically the strength of their recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to reassess the LOE of articles published in plastic surgery journals. METHODS: To assess the overall LOE of publications from January 1 to December 31, 2021, a review of the following plastic surgery journals was performed: Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ), Annals of Plastic Surgery (Annals), Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JRPAS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS GO). RESULTS: Of 3698 PUBMED articles, 1649 original articles and systematic reviews were analyzed. The average LOE for each journal was: ASJ 3.02 ± 0.94, Annals 3.49 ± 0.62, JPRAS 3.33 ± 0.77, PRS 2.91 ± 0.77, and PRS GO 3.45 ± 0.70. The collective average LOE was 3.28 ± 0.78. Only 4.4% were LOE 1 and 7.3% were LOE 2. Compared to past studies, PRS showed a significant LOE improvement (P = .0254), while ASJ and JPRAS saw nonsignificant changes; Annals experienced a significant decrease (P = .0092). CONCLUSIONS: ASJ and PRS showed the highest LOE among the journals analyzed. Despite this, low LOE studies remain prevalent in plastic surgery. This paper serves as a call to action for both researchers and academic journals to elevate the standard, offering several strategies to help improve the LOE in plastic surgery.

[How Successful is the Participation of People with Mental Illness and Family Members in the Development of Evidence- and Consensus-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines? Results of a Survey in Psychiatry]. / Wie gelingt die Einbindung von Betroffenen- und Angehörigenvertreter:innen in die Entwicklung von evidenz- und konsensbasierten Behandlungsleitlinien? Ergebnisse einer Umfrage im Fachbereich Psychiatrie.

OBJECTIVE: The study examines how successful the participation of people with mental illness and family members is currently in the development of psychiatric guidelines. METHODS: Survey results of N=561 (Response 37%) guideline developers are analyzed. RESULTS: Involvement of affected individuals succeeds more often than that of family members (61% vs. 55%). 68% felt that this participation was central to successful guideline development. 51% perceived discrepancies between empirical evidence and experience perspective. 33-36% perceived a lack of appreciation of experience expertise, 37% an insufficient representation and 46% an inequality in consensus building. 45% did not see barriers effectively removed. CONCLUSION: There remain challenges in the participation of people with mental illness and family members. There is an increasing awareness that their participation is central.

Evidence-based Perioperative Practice Utilization among Various Racial Populations-A Retrospective Cohort Trending Analysis of Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated racial disparities in perioperative care and outcomes. The authors hypothesize that among lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients, evidence-based perioperative practice utilization increased over time among all racial groups, and that standardized evidence-based perioperative practice care protocols resulted in reduction of racial disparities and improved outcomes. METHODS: The study analyzed 3,356,805 lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients from the Premier Healthcare database (Premier Healthcare Solutions, Inc., USA). The exposure of interest was race (White, Black, Asian, other). Outcomes were evidence-based perioperative practice adherence (eight individual care components; more than 80% of these implemented was defined as "high evidence-based perioperative practice"), any major complication (including acute renal failure, delirium, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, respiratory failure, stroke, or in-hospital mortality), in-hospital mortality, and prolonged length of stay. RESULTS: Evidence-based perioperative practice adherence rate has increased over time and was associated with reduced complications across all racial groups. However, utilization among Black patients was below that for White patients between 2006 and 2021 (odds ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93 to 0.95]; 45.50% vs. 47.90% on average). Independent of whether evidence-based perioperative practice components were applied, Black patients exhibited higher odds of major complications (1.61 [95% CI, 1.55 to 1.67] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.43 [95% CI, 1.39 to 1.48] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), mortality (1.70 [95% CI, 1.29 to 2.25] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.29 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.51] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), and prolonged length of stay (1.45 [95% CI, 1.42 to 1.48] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.38 [95% CI, 1.37 to 1.40] without high evidence-based perioperative practice) compared to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based perioperative practice utilization in lower extremity joint arthroplasty has been increasing during the last decade. However, racial disparities still exist with Black patients consistently having lower odds of evidence-based perioperative practice adherence. Black patients (compared to the White patients) exhibited higher odds of composite major complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay, independent of evidence-based perioperative practice use, suggesting that evidence-based perioperative practice did not impact racial disparities regarding particularly the Black patients in this surgical cohort.

Is the evidence-based medicine movement counter-productive: are randomised controlled trials the best approach to establish evidence in complex healthcare situations?

In the modern era, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been embraced as the best approach to practising medicine, providing clinicians with 'objective' evidence from clinical research. However, for presentations with complex pathophysiology or from complex social environments, sometimes there remains no evidence, and no amount of research will obtain it. Yet, health researchers continue to undertake randomised controlled trials (RCT) in complex environments, ignoring the risk that participants' health may be compromised throughout the trial process. This paper examines the role of research that seeks to obtain evidence to support EBM. We provide examples of RCTs on ear disease in Aboriginal populations as a case-in-point. Decades of ear research have failed to yield statistically significant findings, demonstrating that when multiple factors are at play, study designs struggle to balance the known disease process drivers, let alone unknown drivers. This paper asks the reader to consider if the pursuit of research is likely to produce evidence in complex situations; or if perhaps RCTs should not be undertaken in these situations. Instead, clinicians could apply empirical evidence, tailoring treatments to individuals while taking into account the complexities of their life circumstances.

Safely Reducing Hospitalizations for Anaphylaxis in Children Through an Evidence-Based Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits for anaphylaxis have increased considerably over the past few decades, especially among children. Despite this, anaphylaxis management remains highly variable and contributes to significant health care spending. On the basis of emerging evidence, in this quality improvement project we aimed to safely decrease hospitalization rates, increase the use of cetirizine, and decrease use of corticosteroids for children with anaphylaxis by December 31, 2019. METHODS: A multipronged intervention strategy including a revised evidence-based guideline was implemented at a tertiary children's teaching hospital by using the Model for Improvement. Statistical process control was used to evaluate for changes in key measures. Length of stay and unplanned return visits within 72 hours were monitored as process and balancing measures, respectively. As a national comparison, hospitalization rates were compared with other hospitals' data from the Pediatric Health Information System. RESULTS: Hospitalizations decreased significantly from 28.5% to 11.2% from preimplementation to implementation, and the balancing measure of 72-hour revisits was stable. The proportion of patients receiving cetirizine increased significantly from 4.2% to 59.7% and use of corticosteroids decreased significantly from 72.6% to 32.4% in patients without asthma. The proportion of patients meeting length of stay criteria increased from 53.3% to 59.9%. Hospitalization rates decreased nationally over time. CONCLUSIONS: We reduced hospitalizations for anaphylaxis by 17.3% without concomitant increases in revisits, demonstrating that unnecessary hospitalizations can be safely avoided. The use of a local evidence-based guideline paired with close outcome monitoring and sustained messaging and feedback to clinicians can effectively improve anaphylaxis management.

Evidence-based strategies to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium: a narrative review.

Delirium is one of the most commonly occurring postoperative complications in older adults. It occurs due to the vulnerability of cerebral functioning to pathophysiological stressors. Identification of those at increased risk of developing delirium early in the surgical pathway provides an opportunity for modification of predisposing and precipitating risk factors and effective shared decision-making. No single delirium prediction tool is used widely in surgical settings. Multi-component interventions to prevent delirium involve structured risk factor modification supported by geriatrician input; these are clinically efficacious and cost effective. Barriers to the widespread implementation of such complex interventions exist, resulting in an 'implementation gap'. There is a lack of evidence for pharmacological prophylaxis for the prevention of delirium. Current evidence suggests that avoidance of peri-operative benzodiazepines, careful titration of anaesthetic depth guided by processed electroencephalogram monitoring and treatment of pain are the most effective strategies to minimise the risk of delirium. Addressing postoperative delirium requires a collaborative, whole pathway approach, beginning with the early identification of those patients who are at risk. The research agenda should continue to examine the potential for pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent delirium while also addressing how successful models of delirium prevention can be translated from one setting to another, underpinned by implementation science methodology.

Influence of endocrine multidisciplinary tumor board on patient management and treatment decision making.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MDT) are used to obtain input regarding cancer management. This study assessed the impact of our institutional Endocrine MDT. METHODS: MDT notes on patients with thyroid cancer treated during 2012-2018 were abstracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record. Management change (MC) was prospectively collected by the MDT coordinator. Biannual evaluations reviewed the impact of the MDT as observed by attendees. RESULTS: MC was recommended in 47 (15%) of 286 presentations, with additional imaging being the most frequent (43%). Presentation of recurrences were more likely to result in MC (24% vs. 13% initial, p = 0.03). Overall, 98% of attendees found the conference exceeded educational expectations. About 24% reported intending to use a more evidence/guideline-based approach after attending and this trend increased over time (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: MDT presentations led to a higher rate of MC particularly in recurrent TC patients and increased evidenced-based practice for attendees.

Appropriate use criteria for ancillary diagnostic testing in dermatopathology: New recommendations for 11 tests and 220 clinical scenarios from the American Society of Dermatopathology Appropriate Use Criteria Committee.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient-centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests. METHODS: RAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2. RESULTS: For 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid-Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated "usually appropriate" or "rarely appropriate" and 45 of 148 (30%), "appropriateness uncertain." LIMITATIONS: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: AUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.