Values and Preferences of Patients and Caregivers Regarding Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis (Eczema): A Systematic Review.

Importance: Patient values and preferences can inform atopic dermatitis (AD) care. Systematic summaries of evidence addressing patient values and preferences have not previously been available. Objective: To inform American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI)/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guideline development, patient and caregiver values and preferences in the management of AD were systematically synthesized. Evidence Review: Paired reviewers independently screened MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from inception until March 20, 2022, for studies of patients with AD or their caregivers, eliciting values and preferences about treatment, rated risk of bias, and extracted data. Thematic and inductive content analysis to qualitatively synthesize the findings was used. Patients, caregivers, and clinical experts provided triangulation. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) informed rating of the quality of evidence. Findings: A total of 7780 studies were identified, of which 62 proved eligible (n = 19 442; median age across studies [range], 15 years [3-44]; 59% female participants). High certainty evidence showed that patients and caregivers preferred to start with nonmedical treatments and to step up therapy with increasing AD severity. Moderate certainty evidence showed that adverse effects from treatment were a substantial concern. Low certainty evidence showed that patients and caregivers preferred odorless treatments that are not visible and have a minimal effect on daily life. Patients valued treatments capable of relieving itching and burning skin and preferred to apply topical corticosteroids sparingly. Patients valued a strong patient-clinician relationship. Some studies presented varied perspectives and 18 were at high risk for industry sponsorship bias. Conclusions and Relevance: In the first systematic review to address patient values and preferences in management of AD to our knowledge, 6 key themes that may inform optimal clinical care, practice guidelines, and future research have been identified.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations.

CLINICAL QUESTION: In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? CURRENT PRACTICE: Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation. THE EVIDENCE: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS: The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Remote shared decision making through telemedicine: A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM). METHODS: We searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th, 2020 for articles on remote SDM in the care of any patient using any technology. We also conducted a search for telemedicine articles citing key reports on SDM outcome measures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full text eligible studies, and synthesized their content using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of the 12 eligible articles, most were European with patients with chronic disease or mental and behavioral health. 8 articles used synchronous remote SDM and 1 used asynchronous remote SDM. Themes related to interactional workability of both telemedicine technologies and SDM emerged, namely access to broadband, digital literacy, and satisfaction with the convenience of remote visits. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine technologies may foster virtual interactions that support remote SDM, which, in turn, may promote productive patient-clinician interactions and patient-centered care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Digitally-mediated consultations surged amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The extent to which SDM frameworks developed for in-person use need any adaptation for remote SDM remains unclear. Investment in innovation, design, implementation, and effectiveness research to advance remote SDM are needed.

Values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain: a mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 17 March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies reporting values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. REVIEW METHODS: We analysed data using meta-narrative synthesis (quantitative findings were qualitised) and tabulated review findings according to identified themes. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 1838 initial records, 15 studies proved eligible for review. High to moderate certainty evidence showed that patient's use of medical cannabis for chronic pain was influenced by both positive (eg, support from friends and family) and negative social factors (eg, stigma surrounding cannabis use). Most patients using medical cannabis favoured products with balanced ratios of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), or high levels of CBD, but not high THC preparations. Many valued the effectiveness of medical cannabis for symptom management even when experiencing adverse events related to concentration, memory or fatigue. Reducing use of prescription medication was a motivating factor for use of medical cannabis, and concerns regarding addiction, losing control or acting strangely were disincentives. Out-of-pocket costs were a barrier, whereas legalisation of medical cannabis improved access and incentivised use.Low to very low certainty evidence suggested highly variable values towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. Individuals with pain related to life-limiting disease were more willing to use medical cannabis, and preferred oral over inhaled administration. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight factors that clinicians should consider when discussing medical cannabis. The variability of patients' values and preferences emphasise the need for shared decision making when considering medical cannabis for chronic pain.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Decision aids linked to evidence summaries and clinical practice guidelines: results from user-testing in clinical encounters.

BACKGROUND: Tools for shared decision-making (e.g. decision aids) are intended to support health care professionals and patients engaged in clinical encounters involving shared decision-making. However, decision aids are hard to produce, and onerous to update. Consequently, they often do not reflect best current evidence, and show limited uptake in practice. In response, we initiated the Sharing Evidence to Inform Treatment decisions (SHARE-IT) project. Our goal was to develop and refine a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries. METHODS: Applying principles of human-centred design and following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and GRADE methods for trustworthy evidence summaries we developed a decision aid prototype in collaboration with the Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence project (DECIDE). We iteratively user-tested the prototype in clinical consultations between clinicians and patients. Semi-structured interviews of participating clinicians and patients were conducted. Qualitative content analysis of both user-testing sessions and interviews was performed and results categorized according to a revised Morville's framework of user-experience. We made it possible to produce, publish and use these decision aids in an electronic guideline authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). RESULTS: Direct observations and analysis of user-testing of 28 clinical consultations between physicians and patients informed four major iterations that addressed readability, understandability, usability and ways to cope with information overload. Participants reported that the tool supported natural flow of the conversation and induced a positive shift in consultation habits towards shared decision-making. We integrated the functionality of SHARE-IT decision aids in MAGICapp, which has since generated numerous decision aids. CONCLUSION: Our study provides a proof of concept that encounter decision aids can be generically produced from GRADE evidence summaries and clinical guidelines. Online authoring and publication platforms can help scale up production including continuous updating of electronic encounter decision aids, fully integrated with evidence summaries and clinical practice guidelines.

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review.

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients' decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients' values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients' perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.

A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations. RESULTS: The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship. CONCLUSION: Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.

Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial. CURRENT PRACTICE: Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use. RECOMMENDATIONS: This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable. THE EVIDENCE: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty). UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?"

[The BMJ Rapid Recommendations: towards a new model for the production of clinical practice guidelines]. / « BMJ Rapid Recommendations ¼ : vers un nouveau modèle de recommandations pour la pratique clinique.

Guidelines play a central role in clinical practice, but their development often does not meet trustworthiness standards, which makes them vulnerable to conflict of interest. Additional problems -include their insufficient updating, and current formats that do not support shared decision-making. To address these issues, we have created the Rapid Recommendations, in collaboration with the British -Medical Journal. In this innovative approach, we a) identify new practice-changing evidence ; b) incorporate them in updated -systematics reviews in about 45 days ; c) gather an international and unconflicted panel including patients and d) publish trust-worthy recommendation in about 90 days, along with new multilayered evidence summaries and tools that facilitate shared decision-making.

Les guidelines ont une place centrale dans notre pratique clinique, mais leur développement manque souvent de rigueur et de transparence, rendant leurs recommandations vulnérables aux conflits d'intérêts. S'y ajoutent les problèmes de mise à jour insuffisante, et des formats qui ne facilitent pas leur adaptation locale ou la décision médicale partagée. En -réponse à ces problèmes, nous avons conçu les RapidRecs en collaboration avec le British Medical Journal. Cette approche innovante consiste à : a) identifier des -nouvelles études pouvant changer la pratique ; b) les incorporer dans des revues systématiques en -environ 45 jours ; c) rassembler un panel international indépendant, sans conflit d'intérêts et incluant des patients et d) émettre des recommandations -selon GRADE en environ 90 jours, avec des outils didactiques -facilitant la décision -médicale partagée.

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for acute high risk transient ischaemic attack and minor ischaemic stroke: a clinical practice guideline.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY AFTER HIGH RISK TRANSIENT ISCHAEMIC ATTACK OR MINOR STROKE? SPECIFICALLY, DOES DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY WITH A COMBINATION OF ASPIRIN AND CLOPIDOGREL LEAD TO A GREATER REDUCTION IN RECURRENT STROKE AND DEATH OVER THE USE OF ASPIRIN ALONE WHEN GIVEN IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS AFTER A HIGH RISK TRANSIENT ISCHAEMIC ATTACK OR MINOR ISCHAEMIC STROKE? AN EXPERT PANEL PRODUCED A STRONG RECOMMENDATION FOR INITIATING DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE ONSET OF SYMPTOMS, AND FOR CONTINUING IT FOR 10-21 DAYS CURRENT PRACTICE IS TYPICALLY TO USE A SINGLE DRUG.

UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey.

INTRODUCTION: UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations. DESIGN: Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate. METHODS: We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate. RESULTS: UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation. CONCLUSION: The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations-in UpToDate and elsewhere-when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence.

Status report from Norway: Implementation of patient involvement in Norwegian health care.

Norway has traditionally high standards regarding civil rights particularly emphasizing equal access to societal resources including health care. This background and the health care system's centralized national organization make it perfectly suited for implementation of shared decision making (SDM). In recent years, great efforts have been made by policy- makers, regional health authorities and not least the patients to facilitate a process of change in health communication culture. SDM is currently even given highest priority in health care strategies on all system levels. SDM has been structurally implemented, e.g. by including corresponding guidance in the standard patient pathways. Moreover, SDM is established as an element of service on the national health portal hosting a constantly increasing number of decision aids. Essentially the Norwegian Knowledge Center for Health Services contributes by searching and providing information for use in decision aids. Implementation is now being rolled out unit by unit for a list of medical problems as a series production of SDM using decision aids and health professional training. Importantly, production of SDM begins and succeeds as a soundly structured communication with both clinical environments and patients. However, as communication training has not been implemented before now, there are no data demonstrating sufficient realization of SDM in current health care. Beyond making reasonable use of scientific achievements, the Norwegian movement's secret of success is the simultaneous commitment of all actors of the health system to a common idea.