Living methods for living guidelines: Changes to evidence synthesis methods in the Australian National Clinical Evidence Taskforce COVID-19 living guidelines

Heath White, Tari Turner, Claire Beecher, Alex Poole, Steve McDonald, Jessie Hewitt, Samantha Chakraborty, David Fraile-Navarro, Saskia Cheyne, Joshua Vogel, Britta Tendal Jeppesen, Steve McGloughlin, National Clinical Evidence Taskforce
{"title":"Living methods for living guidelines: Changes to evidence synthesis methods in the Australian National Clinical Evidence Taskforce COVID-19 living guidelines","authors":"Heath White,&nbsp;Tari Turner,&nbsp;Claire Beecher,&nbsp;Alex Poole,&nbsp;Steve McDonald,&nbsp;Jessie Hewitt,&nbsp;Samantha Chakraborty,&nbsp;David Fraile-Navarro,&nbsp;Saskia Cheyne,&nbsp;Joshua Vogel,&nbsp;Britta Tendal Jeppesen,&nbsp;Steve McGloughlin,&nbsp;National Clinical Evidence Taskforce","doi":"10.1002/gin2.12017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Living evidence methods, such as those used to produce living guidelines, can evolve over time as the context or evidence changes. In Australia, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing living guidelines for the management and care of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since March 2020, undertaking daily searches, and producing over 130 updates of more than 200 recommendations. Over the 3 years of the guidelines, the methods have also been ‘living’. In this paper, we describe why, how and with what impact changes to our methods have been made. When changes were required to the methods, the Taskforce Evidence Team developed a ‘Methods Brief’ outlining the proposed changes, rationale and any risks. This was presented to the Guidelines Leadership Group for approval and to the Steering Committee for noting. Changes were then reflected in the online, publicly available description of our methods. Methods to develop the living guidelines evolved through five phases, reflecting changes in the availability of evidence, the degree and nature of clinical uncertainty and resource availability. Largely these changes were to the criteria we used to select evidence for inclusion, and our expected level of responsiveness to new evidence. In the initial phases, inclusion criteria were very broad, and as the evidence base stabilised our focus narrowed to areas of high clinical importance and evidence certainty. The rapidly evolving nature of the pandemic, understanding of the illness, clinical questions and evidence base during development of the living COVID-19 guidelines, necessitated multiple changes to the methods used to produce the guidelines. In this context, the ongoing revision of the methods for living guideline production was a necessity and a strength of the living approach. Questions remain about how best to ensure rigour is maintained while methods evolve.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.12017","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gin2.12017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Living evidence methods, such as those used to produce living guidelines, can evolve over time as the context or evidence changes. In Australia, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing living guidelines for the management and care of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since March 2020, undertaking daily searches, and producing over 130 updates of more than 200 recommendations. Over the 3 years of the guidelines, the methods have also been ‘living’. In this paper, we describe why, how and with what impact changes to our methods have been made. When changes were required to the methods, the Taskforce Evidence Team developed a ‘Methods Brief’ outlining the proposed changes, rationale and any risks. This was presented to the Guidelines Leadership Group for approval and to the Steering Committee for noting. Changes were then reflected in the online, publicly available description of our methods. Methods to develop the living guidelines evolved through five phases, reflecting changes in the availability of evidence, the degree and nature of clinical uncertainty and resource availability. Largely these changes were to the criteria we used to select evidence for inclusion, and our expected level of responsiveness to new evidence. In the initial phases, inclusion criteria were very broad, and as the evidence base stabilised our focus narrowed to areas of high clinical importance and evidence certainty. The rapidly evolving nature of the pandemic, understanding of the illness, clinical questions and evidence base during development of the living COVID-19 guidelines, necessitated multiple changes to the methods used to produce the guidelines. In this context, the ongoing revision of the methods for living guideline production was a necessity and a strength of the living approach. Questions remain about how best to ensure rigour is maintained while methods evolve.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
活指南的活方法:澳大利亚国家临床证据工作组 COVID-19 生活指南中证据合成方法的变化
活证据方法,如用于制定活指南的方法,可以随着时间的推移而变化,因为背景或证据会发生变化。在澳大利亚,国家临床证据工作组自 2020 年 3 月以来一直在制定《2019 年冠状病毒疾病患者管理与护理活指南》(COVID-19),每天进行检索,并对 200 多项建议进行了 130 多次更新。在指南实施的 3 年中,其方法也是 "活 "的。在本文中,我们将介绍对我们的方法进行修改的原因、方式和影响。当需要对方法进行更改时,特别工作组证据小组会编制一份 "方法简介",概述提议的更改、理由及任何风险。该简报提交给指南领导小组批准,并提交给指导委员会注意。随后,修改内容将反映在在线公开的方法说明中。制定活指南的方法经历了五个阶段,反映了证据可用性、临床不确定性的程度和性质以及资源可用性方面的变化。这些变化主要是针对我们用于选择纳入证据的标准,以及我们对新证据的预期反应水平。在最初阶段,纳入标准非常宽泛,随着证据基础的稳定,我们将重点缩小到具有高度临床重要性和证据确定性的领域。在制定 COVID-19 活体指南的过程中,大流行病的性质、对疾病的理解、临床问题和证据基础都在迅速变化,因此有必要对制定指南的方法进行多次修改。在这种情况下,不断修订活指南的编制方法是必要的,也是活方法的优势所在。如何在方法演变的同时最好地确保严谨性,仍是一个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of European Association of Urology Guidelines 2023 and its adherence to GRADE methodology Issue Information MATCH-IT: A decision support tool for multiple comparisons presenting data from network meta-analysis to facilitate guideline development Developing the Society of Obstetric Medicine Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) Hypertension in Pregnancy Guideline 2023: Guideline development approaches, challenges and contextual considerations Consumer engagement in living evidence “a beautiful opportunity”: International qualitative study with patients and methodologists
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1