Cargando…

Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Scientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martínez García, Laura, Arévalo-Rodríguez, Ingrid, Solà, Ivan, Haynes, R Brian, Vandvik, Per Olav, Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3520818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23164220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-109
_version_ 1782252838350487552
author Martínez García, Laura
Arévalo-Rodríguez, Ingrid
Solà, Ivan
Haynes, R Brian
Vandvik, Per Olav
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
author_facet Martínez García, Laura
Arévalo-Rodríguez, Ingrid
Solà, Ivan
Haynes, R Brian
Vandvik, Per Olav
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
author_sort Martínez García, Laura
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Scientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information. RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations’ Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3520818
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35208182012-12-13 Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review Martínez García, Laura Arévalo-Rodríguez, Ingrid Solà, Ivan Haynes, R Brian Vandvik, Per Olav Alonso-Coello, Pablo Implement Sci Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Scientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information. RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations’ Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs. BioMed Central 2012-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3520818/ /pubmed/23164220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-109 Text en Copyright ©2012 Martínez García et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Martínez García, Laura
Arévalo-Rodríguez, Ingrid
Solà, Ivan
Haynes, R Brian
Vandvik, Per Olav
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
title Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
title_full Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
title_fullStr Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
title_short Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
title_sort strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3520818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23164220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-109
work_keys_str_mv AT martinezgarcialaura strategiesformonitoringandupdatingclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview
AT arevalorodriguezingrid strategiesformonitoringandupdatingclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview
AT solaivan strategiesformonitoringandupdatingclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview
AT haynesrbrian strategiesformonitoringandupdatingclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview
AT vandvikperolav strategiesformonitoringandupdatingclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview
AT alonsocoellopablo strategiesformonitoringandupdatingclinicalpracticeguidelinesasystematicreview