Cargando…
Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044835/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31964662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031442 |
_version_ | 1783501650189615104 |
---|---|
author | Lunny, Carole Ramasubbu, Cynthia Gerrish, Savannah Liu, Tracy Salzwedel, Douglas M Puil, Lorri Mintzes, Barbara Wright, James (Jim) |
author_facet | Lunny, Carole Ramasubbu, Cynthia Gerrish, Savannah Liu, Tracy Salzwedel, Douglas M Puil, Lorri Mintzes, Barbara Wright, James (Jim) |
author_sort | Lunny, Carole |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017–2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7044835 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70448352020-03-09 Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study Lunny, Carole Ramasubbu, Cynthia Gerrish, Savannah Liu, Tracy Salzwedel, Douglas M Puil, Lorri Mintzes, Barbara Wright, James (Jim) BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice INTRODUCTION: Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017–2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7044835/ /pubmed/31964662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031442 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Evidence Based Practice Lunny, Carole Ramasubbu, Cynthia Gerrish, Savannah Liu, Tracy Salzwedel, Douglas M Puil, Lorri Mintzes, Barbara Wright, James (Jim) Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study |
title | Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study |
title_full | Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study |
title_fullStr | Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study |
title_short | Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study |
title_sort | impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study |
topic | Evidence Based Practice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044835/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31964662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031442 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lunnycarole impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy AT ramasubbucynthia impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy AT gerrishsavannah impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy AT liutracy impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy AT salzwedeldouglasm impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy AT puillorri impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy AT mintzesbarbara impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy AT wrightjamesjim impactanduseofreviewsandoverviewsofreviewstoinformclinicalpracticeguidelinerecommendationsprotocolforamethodsstudy |