RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines should be updated to maintain their validity. Our aim was to estimate the length of time before recommendations become outdated. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort design and included recommendations from clinical guidelines developed in the Spanish National Health System clinical guideline program since 2008. We performed a descriptive analysis of references, recommendations and resources used, and a survival analysis of recommendations using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We included 113 recommendations from 4 clinical guidelines with a median of 4 years since the most recent search (range 3.9-4.4 yr). We retrieved 39 136 references (range 3343-14 787) using an exhaustive literature search, 668 of which were related to the recommendations in our sample. We identified 69 (10.3%) key references, corresponding to 25 (22.1%) recommendations that required updating. Ninety-two percent (95% confidence interval 86.9-97.0) of the recommendations were valid 1 year after their development. This probability decreased at 2 (85.7%), 3 (81.3%) and 4 years (77.8%). INTERPRETATION: Recommendations quickly become outdated, with 1 out of 5 recommendations being out of date after 3 years. Waiting more than 3 years to review a guideline is potentially too long.
Assuntos
Difusão de Inovações , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Pesquisa Translacional Biomédica , Estudos de Coortes , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estudos Retrospectivos , EspanhaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) become quickly outdated and require a periodic reassessment of evidence research to maintain their validity. However, there is little research about this topic. Our project will provide evidence for some of the most pressing questions in this field: 1) what is the average time for recommendations to become out of date?; 2) what is the comparative performance of two restricted search strategies to evaluate the need to update recommendations?; and 3) what is the feasibility of a more regular monitoring and updating strategy compared to usual practice?. In this protocol we will focus on questions one and two. METHODS: The CPG Development Programme of the Spanish Ministry of Health developed 14 CPGs between 2008 and 2009. We will stratify guidelines by topic and by publication year, and include one CPG by strata.We will develop a strategy to assess the validity of CPG recommendations, which includes a baseline survey of clinical experts, an update of the original exhaustive literature searches, the identification of key references (reference that trigger a potential recommendation update), and the assessment of the potential changes in each recommendation.We will run two alternative search strategies to efficiently identify important new evidence: 1) PLUS search based in McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) database; and 2) a Restrictive Search (ReSe) based on the least number of MeSH terms and free text words needed to locate all the references of each original recommendation.We will perform a survival analysis of recommendations using the Kaplan-Meier method and we will use the log-rank test to analyse differences between survival curves according to the topic, the purpose, the strength of recommendations and the turnover. We will retrieve key references from the exhaustive search and evaluate their presence in the PLUS and ReSe search results. DISCUSSION: Our project, using a highly structured and transparent methodology, will provide guidance of when recommendations are likely to be at risk of being out of date. We will also assess two novel restrictive search strategies which could reduce the workload without compromising rigour when CPGs developers check for the need of updating.
Assuntos
Difusão de Inovações , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Pesquisa Translacional Biomédica , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Armazenamento e Recuperação da Informação , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Intragastric balloons have been used since 1985 to treat obesity, but an evidence-based systematic review had not been previously performed. The objective of this study is to determine the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of the most widely used balloon, BioEnterics Intragastric Balloon (BIB), to treat obesity. METHODS: Systematic literature review of Medline, Embase, and other information sources from inception to March 2006. The quality of selected studies was assessed. Meta-analysis of weighted mean difference was made using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: We pooled 15 articles (3,608 patients) to estimate BIBs effectiveness. The estimates for weight lost at balloon removal for BIB were the following: 14.7 kg, 12.2% of initial weight, 5.7 kg/m(2), and 32.1% of excess weight. However, data were scant after balloon removal. Yet, efficacy at balloon removal was estimated with a meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials (75 patients) that compared balloon versus placebo, indicating the balloon group lost more weight than the placebo group. These differences in weight lost were 6.7 kg, 1.5% of initial weight, 3.2 kg/m(2), and 17.6% of excess weight. Regarding BIB safety, the majority of complications were mild and the early removal rate was 4.2%. CONCLUSION: The use of the BIB, within a multidisciplinary weight management program, is a short-term effective treatment to lose weight, but it is not yet possible to verify its capacity to maintain the weight lost over a long period of time.