Prioritizing questions and topics for the development of guidelines and consensus-based recommendations supported by ILAE: A scoping review and proposal of prioritization criteria

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsia Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1111/epi.18286
Katia Lin, Sara Eyal, Izabel Galhardo Demarchi, Tomer Ben-Shushan, Stéphane Auvin, Ching Soong Khoo, Raidah Al-Baradie, Arjune Sen, Charles Newton, Gift Wilson Ngwende, Nicelle de Morais Candez, Michael Sperling, Francesco Brigo, Nathalie Jette, Samuel Wiebe, the Standards and Best Practice Council—Prioritization Task Force
{"title":"Prioritizing questions and topics for the development of guidelines and consensus-based recommendations supported by ILAE: A scoping review and proposal of prioritization criteria","authors":"Katia Lin,&nbsp;Sara Eyal,&nbsp;Izabel Galhardo Demarchi,&nbsp;Tomer Ben-Shushan,&nbsp;Stéphane Auvin,&nbsp;Ching Soong Khoo,&nbsp;Raidah Al-Baradie,&nbsp;Arjune Sen,&nbsp;Charles Newton,&nbsp;Gift Wilson Ngwende,&nbsp;Nicelle de Morais Candez,&nbsp;Michael Sperling,&nbsp;Francesco Brigo,&nbsp;Nathalie Jette,&nbsp;Samuel Wiebe,&nbsp;the Standards and Best Practice Council—Prioritization Task Force","doi":"10.1111/epi.18286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus-based recommendations (CBRs) require considerable effort, collaboration, and time—all within the constraints of finite resources. Professional societies, such as the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), must prioritize what topics and questions to address. Implementing evidence-based care remains a crucial challenge in clinical practice. Using rigorous processes to ensure that the best available research evidence informs health care recommendations is of the utmost importance. We aimed to develop a structured and transparent process for prioritizing future CPGs and CBRs supported by the ILAE. A multidisciplinary group of researchers and experts from the ILAE Prioritization Task Force conducted a scoping review to identify prioritization approaches for CPG and CBR development. This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and Cochrane recommendations. A Problem/population, Concept, and Context (PCC) strategy was applied to the literature search and selection of the studies. We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus without time or language limits. The findings were synthesized qualitatively. A consensus-based process was followed to develop a prioritization scoring tool for CPGs and another for CBRs. Thirty-nine participants, including clinicians, experts in the field, methodologists, and other relevant stakeholders, contributed to developing the final instrument (based on a 5-point Likert scale). Of 721 unique citations, 8 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development were included. Based on these, we developed an initial tool with 10 criteria. It was iteratively optimized and revised by the ILAE Standards and Best Practice Council, which unanimously approved the instrument. The ILAE Executive Committee subsequently approved its final version. The ILAE Prioritization Tool is intended to standardize the prioritization processes and optimize the ILAE's use of resources to select CPGs and CBRs for endorsement.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":"66 5","pages":"1406-1416"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epi.18286","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus-based recommendations (CBRs) require considerable effort, collaboration, and time—all within the constraints of finite resources. Professional societies, such as the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), must prioritize what topics and questions to address. Implementing evidence-based care remains a crucial challenge in clinical practice. Using rigorous processes to ensure that the best available research evidence informs health care recommendations is of the utmost importance. We aimed to develop a structured and transparent process for prioritizing future CPGs and CBRs supported by the ILAE. A multidisciplinary group of researchers and experts from the ILAE Prioritization Task Force conducted a scoping review to identify prioritization approaches for CPG and CBR development. This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and Cochrane recommendations. A Problem/population, Concept, and Context (PCC) strategy was applied to the literature search and selection of the studies. We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus without time or language limits. The findings were synthesized qualitatively. A consensus-based process was followed to develop a prioritization scoring tool for CPGs and another for CBRs. Thirty-nine participants, including clinicians, experts in the field, methodologists, and other relevant stakeholders, contributed to developing the final instrument (based on a 5-point Likert scale). Of 721 unique citations, 8 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development were included. Based on these, we developed an initial tool with 10 criteria. It was iteratively optimized and revised by the ILAE Standards and Best Practice Council, which unanimously approved the instrument. The ILAE Executive Committee subsequently approved its final version. The ILAE Prioritization Tool is intended to standardize the prioritization processes and optimize the ILAE's use of resources to select CPGs and CBRs for endorsement.

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
确定问题和主题的优先次序,以便制定由国际劳工学会支持的指导方针和基于共识的建议:范围审查和优先次序标准提案。
临床实践指南(cpg)和基于共识的建议(cbr)需要大量的努力、协作和时间——所有这些都是在有限资源的限制下进行的。专业协会,如国际抗癫痫联盟(ILAE),必须优先考虑要解决的主题和问题。实施循证护理仍然是临床实践中的一个关键挑战。使用严格的程序,确保现有的最佳研究证据为卫生保健建议提供依据,这一点至关重要。我们的目标是制定一个结构化和透明的程序,以确定ILAE支持的未来cpg和cbr的优先顺序。来自ILAE优先级工作组的多学科研究人员和专家小组进行了范围审查,以确定CPG和CBR开发的优先级方法。本范围评价是根据系统评价和荟萃分析范围评价扩展首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)和Cochrane推荐进行报道的。采用问题/人口、概念和背景(PCC)策略进行文献检索和研究选择。我们搜索了Medline/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science和Scopus,没有时间和语言限制。这些发现是定性综合的。遵循一个基于共识的过程,为cpg和cbr开发一个优先级评分工具。39名参与者,包括临床医生、该领域的专家、方法学家和其他相关利益相关者,为开发最终工具(基于5点李克特量表)做出了贡献。在721次独特引用中,8篇报告指南制定优先顺序方法的论文被纳入。基于这些,我们开发了一个带有10个标准的初始工具。经过ILAE标准和最佳实践委员会的反复优化和修订,该委员会一致批准了该文书。国际劳工学会执行委员会随后核准了其最终版本。ILAE优先排序工具旨在标准化优先排序过程,优化ILAE对资源的使用,以选择cpg和cbr进行批准。
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
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
期刊最新文献
The small molecule simufilam dose-dependently attenuates the worsening of seizures in a mouse model of tuberous sclerosis complex. Clinical use and radiological yield of magnetic resonance fingerprinting in epilepsy. Biofluid-specific variations in circulating 5' transfer RNA fragments during ictal and interictal states in experimental temporal lobe epilepsy. Ketamine in super-refractory status epilepticus: Combined value of inflammatory biomarkers and EEG features. Cortical and etiological determinants of stimulation-induced seizures in children undergoing stereo-EEG.
×
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:604180095
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