Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of preoperative MRI in the management of Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or cohort studies assessing the impact of preoperative breast MRI in surgical outcomes, treatment change or loco-regional recurrence. We provided pooled estimates for odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR) and proportions and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 3 RCTs and 23 observational cohorts, corresponding to 20,415 patients. For initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS), the RCTs showed that MRI may result in little to no difference (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00) (low certainty); observational studies showed that MRI may have no difference in the odds of re-operation after BCS (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.61) (low certainty); and uncertain evidence from RCTs suggests little to no difference with respect to total mastectomy rate (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.27) (very low certainty). We also found that MRI may change the initial treatment plans in 17% (95% CI 12 to 24%) of cases, but with little to no effect on locoregional recurrence (aHR = 1.18; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.76) (very low certainty). CONCLUSION: We found evidence of low to very low certainty which may suggest there is no improvement of surgical outcomes with pre-operative MRI assessment of women with DCIS lesions. There is a need for large rigorously conducted RCTs to evaluate the role of preoperative MRI in this population. KEY POINTS: • Evidence of low to very low certainty may suggest there is no improvement in surgical outcomes with pre-operative MRI. • There is a need for large rigorously conducted RCTs evaluating the role of preoperative MRI to improve treatment planning for DCIS.

Guideline-based quality assurance: a conceptual framework for the definition of key elements.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) started developing a methodological framework for a guideline-based quality assurance (QA) scheme to improve cancer quality of care. During the first phase of the work, inconsistency emerged about the use of terminology for the definition, the conceptual underpinnings and the way QA relates to health questions that are answered in guidelines. The objective of this final of three articles is to propose a conceptual framework for an integrated approach to guideline and QA development and clarify terms and definitions for key elements. This work will inform the upcoming European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (ECICC). METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of 23 experts from key organizations in the fields of guideline development, performance measurement and quality assurance participated in a mixed method approach including face-to-face dialogue and several rounds of virtual meetings. Informed by results of a systematic literature review that indicated absence of an existing framework and practical examples, we first identified the relations of key elements in guideline-based QA and then developed appropriate concepts and terminology to provide guidance. RESULTS: Our framework connects the three key concepts of quality indicators, performance measures and performance indicators integrated with guideline development. Quality indicators are constructs used as a guide to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of the structure, process and outcomes of healthcare services; performance measures are tools that quantify or describe measurable elements of practice performance; and performance indicators are quantifiable and measurable units or scores of practice, which should be guided by guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistency in the way key terms of QA are used and defined has confused the field. Our conceptual framework defines the role, meaning and interactions of the key elements for improving quality in healthcare. It directly builds on the questions asked in guidelines and answered through recommendations. These findings will be applied in the forthcoming ECICC and for the future updates of ECIBC. These are large-scale integrated projects aimed at improving healthcare quality across Europe through the development of guideline-based QA schemes; this will help in implementing and improving our approach.

Bringing two worlds closer together: a critical analysis of an integrated approach to guideline development and quality assurance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives. METHODS: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants. RESULTS: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. DISCUSSION: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.

Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines.

Description: The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers. Methods: An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or conditional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence. Recommendations: This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.

Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer guidelines in Europe: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines' (CGs) adherence supports high-quality care. However, healthcare providers do not always comply with CGs recommendations. This systematic literature review aims to assess the extent of healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe and to identify the factors that impact on healthcare providers' adherence. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and quantitative or qualitative primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase up to May 2019. The eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by a second author. We conducted a narrative synthesis attending to the modality of the healthcare process, methods to measure adherence, the scope of the CGs, and population characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 8137 references, we included 41 primary studies conducted in eight European countries. Most followed a retrospective cohort design (19/41; 46%) and were at low or moderate risk of bias. Adherence for overall breast cancer care process (from diagnosis to follow-up) ranged from 54 to 69%; for overall treatment process [including surgery, chemotherapy (CT), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiotherapy (RT)] the median adherence was 57.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 38.8-67.3%), while for systemic therapy (CT and ET) it was 76% (IQR 68-77%). The median adherence for the processes assessed individually was higher, ranging from 74% (IQR 10-80%), for the follow-up, to 90% (IQR 87-92.5%) for ET. Internal factors that potentially impact on healthcare providers' adherence were their perceptions, preferences, lack of knowledge, or intentional decisions. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients are not receiving CGs-recommended care. Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe has room for improvement in almost all care processes. CGs development and implementation processes should address the main factors that influence healthcare providers' adherence, especially patient-related ones. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).

Adherence to breast cancer guidelines is associated with better survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in EU countries.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) clinical guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients with or at risk of BC. Suboptimal adherence to recommendations has the potential to negatively affect population health. However, no study has systematically reviewed the impact of BC guideline adherence -as prognosis factor- on BC healthcare processes and health outcomes. The objectives are to analyse the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes and on healthcare costs. METHODS: We searched systematic reviews and primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase, conducted in European Union (EU) countries (inception to May 2019). Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and crosschecked by a second. We used random-effects meta-analyses to examine the impact of guideline adherence on overall survival and disease-free survival, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: We included 21 primary studies. Most were published during the last decade (90%), followed a retrospective cohort design (86%), focused on treatment guideline adherence (95%), and were at low (80%) or moderate (20%) risk of bias. Nineteen studies (95%) examined the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes, while two (10%) on healthcare cost. Adherence to guidelines was associated with increased overall survival (HR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.59-0.76) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.35, 95%CI 0.15-0.82), representing 138 more survivors (96 more to 178 more) and 336 patients free of recurrence (73 more to 491 more) for every 1000 women receiving adherent CG treatment compared to those receiving non-adherent treatment at 5 years follow-up (moderate certainty). Adherence to treatment guidelines was associated with higher costs, but adherence to follow-up guidelines was associated with lower costs (low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Our review of EU studies suggests that there is moderate certainty that adherence to BC guidelines is associated with an improved survival. BC guidelines should be rigorously implemented in the clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42018092884 ).

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Local opinion leaders (OLs) are individuals perceived as credible and trustworthy, who disseminate and implement best evidence, for instance through informal one-to-one teaching or community outreach education visits. The use of OLs is a promising strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of local opinion leaders to improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers on 3 July 2018, together with searching reference lists of included studies and contacting experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised studies comparing the effects of local opinion leaders, either alone or with a single or more intervention(s) to disseminate evidence-based practice, with no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s). Eligible studies were those reporting objective measures of professional performance, for example, the percentage of patients being prescribed a specific drug or health outcomes, or both. We included all studies independently of the method used to identify OLs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane procedures in this review. The main comparison was (i) between any intervention involving OLs (OLs alone, OLs with a single or more intervention(s)) versus any comparison intervention (no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s)). We also made four secondary comparisons: ii) OLs alone versus no intervention, iii) OLs alone versus a single intervention, iv) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s), and v) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies, involving more than 337 hospitals, 350 primary care practices, 3005 healthcare professionals, and 29,167 patients (not all studies reported this information). A majority of studies were from North America, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Eighteen of these studies (21 comparisons, 71 compliance outcomes) contributed to the median adjusted risk difference (RD) for the main comparison. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 30 months). The results suggested that the OL interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice (10.8% absolute improvement in compliance, interquartile range (IQR): 3.5% to 14.6%; moderate-certainty evidence).Results for the secondary comparisons also suggested that OLs probably improve compliance with evidence-based practice (moderate-certainty evidence): i) OLs alone versus no intervention: RD (IQR): 9.15% (-0.3% to 15%); ii) OLs alone versus a single intervention: RD (range): 13.8% (12% to 15.5%); iii) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s): RD (IQR): 7.1% (-1.4% to 19%); iv) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention: RD (IQR):10.25% (0.6% to 15.75%).It is uncertain if OLs alone, or in combination with other intervention(s), may lead to improved patient outcomes (3 studies; 5 dichotomous outcomes) since the certainty of evidence was very low. For two of the secondary comparisons, the IQR included the possibility of a small negative effect of the OL intervention. Possible explanations for the occasional negative effects are, for example, the possibility that the OLs may have prioritised some outcomes, at the expense of others, or that an unaccounted outcome difference at baseline, may have given a faulty impression of a negative effect of the intervention at follow-up. No study reported on costs or cost-effectiveness.We were unable to determine the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to identifying OLs, as most studies used the sociometric method. Nor could we determine which methods used by OLs to educate their peers were most effective, as the methods were poorly described in most studies. In addition, we could not determine whether OL teams were more effective than single OLs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence-based practice, but the effectiveness varies both within and between studies.The effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The costs and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention(s) is unknown. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in types of intervention, setting, and outcomes. In most studies, the role and actions of the OL were not clearly described, and we cannot, therefore, comment on strategies to enhance their effectiveness. It is also not clear whether the methods used to identify OLs are important for their effectiveness, or whether the effect differs if education is delivered by single OLs or by multidisciplinary OL teams. Further research may help us to understand how these factors affect the effectiveness of OLs.

GRADE EVIDENCE TO DECISION (EtD) FRAMEWORK FOR COVERAGE DECISIONS.

OBJECTIVES: Coverage decisions are decisions by third party payers about whether and how much to pay for technologies or services, and under what conditions. Given their complexity, a systematic and transparent approach is needed. The DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence) Project, a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group initiative funded by the European Union, has developed GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for different types of decisions, including coverage ones. METHODS: We used an iterative approach, including brainstorming to generate ideas, consultation with stakeholders, user testing, and pilot testing of the framework. RESULTS: The general structure of the EtD includes formulation of the question, an assessment using twelve criteria, and conclusions. Criteria that are relevant for coverage decisions are similar to those for clinical recommendations from a population perspective. Important differences between the two include the decision-making processes, accountability, and the nature of the judgments that need to be made for some criteria. Although cost-effectiveness is a key consideration when making coverage decisions, it may not be the determining factor. Strength of recommendation is not directly linked to the type of coverage decisions, but when there are important uncertainties, it may be possible to cover an intervention for a subgroup, in the context of research, with price negotiation, or with restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The EtD provides a systematic and transparent approach for making coverage decisions. It helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether a technology or service should be covered and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

[Systematic review of safeness and therapeutic efficacy of cannabis in patients with multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, and in oncological patients treated with chemotherapy]. / Revisione sistematica sull'efficacia terapeutica e la sicurezza della cannabis per i pazienti affetti da sclerosi multipla, dolore neuropatico cronico e pazienti oncologici che assumono chemioterapie.

BACKGROUND: medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis or cannabinoids as medical therapy to treat disease or alleviate symptoms. In the United States, 23 states and Washington DC (May 2015) have introduced laws to permit the medical use of cannabis. Within the European Union, medicinal cannabis laws and praxis vary wildly between Countries. OBJECTIVES: to provide evidence for benefits and harms of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) treatment for adults in the following indications: control of spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis; control of pain in patients with chronic neuropathic pain; control of nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE from inception to September 2016. We also searched for on-going studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal. All searches included also non-English language literature. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) compared with placebo or other pharmacological agents were included. Three authors independently evaluated the titles and abstracts of studies identified in the literature searches for their eligibility. For studies considered eligible, we retrieved full texts. Three investigators independently extracted data. For the assessment of the quality of evidence, we used the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and GRADE working Group. RESULTS: 41 trials (4,550 participants) were included; 15 studies considered efficacy and safety of cannabis for patients with multiple sclerosis, 12 for patients with chronic pain, and 14 for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. The included studies were published between 1975 and 2015, and the majority of them were conducted in Europe. We judged almost 50% of these studies to be at low risk of bias. The large majority (80%) of the comparisons were with placebo; only 8 studies included patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy comparing cannabis with other antiemetic drugs. Concerning the efficacy of cannabis (compared with placebo) in patients with multiple sclerosis, confidence in the estimate was high in favour of cannabis for spasticity (numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale, but not the Ashworth scale) and pain. For chronic and neuropathic pain (compared with placebo), there was evidence of a small effect; however, confidence in the estimate is low and these results could not be considered conclusive. There is uncertainty whether cannabis, including extracts and tinctures, compared with placebo or other antiemetic drugs reduces nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer requiring chemotherapy, although the confidence in the estimate of the effect was low or very low. In the included studies, many adverse events were reported and none of the studies assessed the development of abuse or dependence. CONCLUSIONS: there is incomplete evidence of the efficacy and safety of medical use of cannabis in the clinical contexts considered in this review. Furthermore, for many of the outcomes considered, the confidence in the estimate of the effect was again low or very low. To give conclusive answers to the efficacy and safety of cannabis used for medical purposes in the clinical contexts considered, further studies are needed, with higher quality, larger sample sizes, and possibly using the same diagnostic tools for evaluating outcomes of interest.

Concepts for the development of person-centred, digitally-enabled, Artificial Intelligence-assisted ARIA care pathways (ARIA 2024).

The traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients' resources and abilities to be experts in their own life based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality and coordination, as well as quality of life, are important aims in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centred care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (i) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (ii) digitally-enabled person-centred care (1). It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. The paper includes (i) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a two-decade journey, (ii) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (iii) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (iv) from guidelines to digital care pathways, (v) embedding Planetary Health, (vi) novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (vi) embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (vii) the ARIA-EAACI strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (viii) Artificial Intelligence, (ix) the development of digitally-enabled ARIA Person-Centred Care and (x) the political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centred around the patient in order to make them more applicable and sustainable.

[DECIDE: developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence]. / DECIDE: uno strumento per rendere trasparenti i criteri utilizzati per le decisioni in sanità

Healthcare systems are offered with a wide range of technologies and services, but they have to cope with decreasing resources and the uncertainty about what is effective and more appropriate. Making decisions about health care interventions is complex. Decisions should be informed by the best available evidence, being comprehensive to take into account all the relevant aspects (e.g. efficacy, safety, equity, costs), and taken within a limited time period. DECIDE is a project funded by the European Community that, using the GRADE methodology, aims at implementing strategies to enhance dissemination and communication of scientific evidence to support on-time evidence-based decision making in clinical practice and healthcare policies. Communication strategies are developed in order to address different target audiences, trying to meet their information needs. One key target are policy makers and managers who are responsible for coverage decision making.

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).

The GIN-McMaster guideline tool extension for the integration of quality improvement and quality assurance in guidelines: a description of the methods for its development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop an extension of the widely used GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist and Tool for the integration of quality assurance and improvement (QAI) schemes with guideline development. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach incorporating evidence from a systematic review, an expert workshop and a survey of experts to iteratively create an extension of the checklist for QAI through three rounds of feedback. As a part of this process, we also refined criteria of a good guideline-based quality indicator. RESULTS: We developed a 40-item checklist extension addressing steps for the integration of QAI into guideline development across the existing 18 topics and created one new topic specific to QAI. The steps span from 'organization, budget, planning and training', to updating of QAI and guideline implementation. CONCLUSION: The tool supports integration of QAI schemes with guideline development initiatives and it will be used in the forthcoming integrated European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer. Future work should evaluate this extension and QAI items requiring additional support for guideline developers and links to QAI schemes.

Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

Trastuzumab containing regimens for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-fifth of women who develop early breast cancer have HER2-positive tumours, which if untreated, have a worse prognosis than HER2-negative tumours. Trastuzumab is a selective treatment targeting the HER2 pathway. Although the results on efficacy seem to support its use, there are potential cardiac toxicities which need to be considered, especially for women at lower risk of recurrence, or those at increased cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on the efficacy and safety of therapy with trastuzumab, overall and in relation to its duration, concurrent or sequential administration with the standard chemotherapy regimen in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's (CBCGs) Specialised Trials Register, and used the search strategy developed by the CBCG to search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, TOXNET, and the WHO ICTRP search portal (up to February 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab alone, or in combination with chemotherapy, or no treatment, or standard chemotherapy alone, in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer including women with locally advanced breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data from published and unpublished trials. We used hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes and risk ratio (RRs) for binary outcomes. Subgroup analyses included duration (less or greater than six months) and concurrent or sequential trastuzumab administration. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies involving 11,991 patients. The combined HRs for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) significantly favoured the trastuzumab-containing regimens (HR 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.77, P < 0.00001; and HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71, P < 0.00001, respectively). Trastuzumab significantly increased the risk of congestive heart failure (CHF: RR 5.11; 90% CI 3.00 to 8.72, P < 0.00001); and left ventricular ejection fraction decline (LVEF: RR 1.83; 90% CI 1.36 to 2.47, P = 0.0008). For haematological toxicities, risks did not differ. The two small trials that administered trastuzumab for less than six months did not differ in efficacy from longer studies, but found fewer cardiac toxicities. Studies with concurrent administration gave similar efficacy and toxicity results to sequential studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trastuzumab significantly improves OS and DFS in HER2-positive women with early and locally advanced breast cancer, although it also significantly increases the risk of CHF and LVEF decline. The available subgroup analyses are limited by the small number of studies. Studies that administered trastuzumab concurrently or sequentially did not differ significantly in efficacy. Shorter duration of therapy may reduce cardiotoxicity and maintain efficacy, however there is insufficient evidence at present to conclude this due to small numbers of patients in these trials.

Interventions to increase clinical incident reporting in health care.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of adverse clinical events is thought to be an effective method of improving the safety of healthcare. Underreporting of these adverse events is often said to occur with consequence of missing of opportunities to learn from these incidents. A clinical incident can be defined as any occurrence which is not consistent with the routine care of the patient or the routine operation of the institution. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase clinical incident reporting in healthcare settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the the following databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge), Healthstar (OVID), INSPEC, DHSS-DATA, SIGLE, ISI Conference Proceedings, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Science), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) of interventions designed to increase clinical incident reporting in healthcare. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies, extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies (one CBA and three ITS studies) met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The CBA study showed a significant improvement in incident reporting rates after the introduction of the new reporting system. Just one of the ITS studies showed a statistically significant improved effectiveness of the new reporting system from nine months. The other two studies reported no statistically significant improvements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limitations of the studies it is not possible to draw conclusions for clinical practice. Anyone introducing a system into practice should give careful consideration to conducting an evaluation using a robust design.

Mitigating Disputes Originated by Multiple Discordant Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Survey of Methodologists and Clinicians.

Background: Overlapping systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly frequent in the medical literature. They can easily generate discordant evidence, as estimates of effect sizes and their interpretation might differ from one source to another. Objective: To analyze how methodologists and clinicians make a decision when faced with discordant evidence formalized in structured tables. Methods: We conducted a 16-item survey exploring how methodologists and clinicians would react when presented with multiple Summary of Findings (SoF) tables (generated using the GRADE tool) derived from 4 overlapping and discordant SRs and meta-analyses on thrombolytic therapy for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. SoF tables reported 4 different magnitudes of effects and overall certainty. Participants were asked to provide their recommendations regarding the intervention and the reasons behind their conclusion. Results: Of the 80 invitees, 41 (51%) participated. The majority described themselves as "somewhat familiar" or experts with SoF tables. The majority recommended the therapy (pharmacological systemic thrombolysis), grading the recommendation as weak positive. Certainty of evidence and benefit-risk balance were the two criteria that prevailed in generating the recommendation. When faced with overlapping meta-analyses, the preferred approach was to use only high-quality SRs and exclude redundant SRs. Several participants suggested integrating the SoF tables with additional information, such as a more comprehensive evaluation of the risk of bias of systematic reviews (71%), heterogeneity/inconsistency (68%) and studies included within each SR (62%). Conclusion: When faced with multiple controversial SR results, the type and completeness of reported information in SoF tables affect experts' ability to make recommendations. Developers of the SoF table should consider collating key information from overlapping and potentially discordant reviews.

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.