Cindy Stern, Danielle Pollock, Timothy Barker, Grace McKenzie Holland, Sabira Hasanoff, Nipun Shrestha, Ines Semendric, Lemma Negesa Bulto, Sitasma Sharma, Anna Fragkoudi, Sebastian Cole Facchin-Young, Abigail Molly Day-Sharman, Lara Stollery, Jay Beasley-Hall, Camille Schubert, Lynne Giles, Tracy Merlin, Steve Vucic, Jo Whitehouse, Zachary Munn
Introduction
Motor neurone disease (MND) is a rare but devastating neurodegenerative condition that results in progressive muscle weakness, disability, and eventual respiratory failure. In Australia, the impact of MND is significant, and there is a pressing need for a high-quality, locally relevant guideline to support equitable, person-centred care.
Questions
This guideline aims to address key clinical and care-related questions that arise across the MND trajectory. It will identify the most pressing topics and uncertainties in MND management through interest holder consultation and structured prioritisation.
Methods
The guideline will be developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and will align with standards set by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). Governance will include a multi-tiered structure with lived experience representation. Implementation planning and evaluation will be integrated throughout, with a planned transition to a living guideline model supported by an ongoing evidence surveillance strategy.
{"title":"Protocol for the Development of The Australian Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Guideline","authors":"Cindy Stern, Danielle Pollock, Timothy Barker, Grace McKenzie Holland, Sabira Hasanoff, Nipun Shrestha, Ines Semendric, Lemma Negesa Bulto, Sitasma Sharma, Anna Fragkoudi, Sebastian Cole Facchin-Young, Abigail Molly Day-Sharman, Lara Stollery, Jay Beasley-Hall, Camille Schubert, Lynne Giles, Tracy Merlin, Steve Vucic, Jo Whitehouse, Zachary Munn","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70055","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Motor neurone disease (MND) is a rare but devastating neurodegenerative condition that results in progressive muscle weakness, disability, and eventual respiratory failure. In Australia, the impact of MND is significant, and there is a pressing need for a high-quality, locally relevant guideline to support equitable, person-centred care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Questions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This guideline aims to address key clinical and care-related questions that arise across the MND trajectory. It will identify the most pressing topics and uncertainties in MND management through interest holder consultation and structured prioritisation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The guideline will be developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and will align with standards set by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). Governance will include a multi-tiered structure with lived experience representation. Implementation planning and evaluation will be integrated throughout, with a planned transition to a living guideline model supported by an ongoing evidence surveillance strategy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since 1999, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) has developed best practice guidelines (BPG) to promote consistency and quality of evidence-based care and improve patient, organization and health system outcomes. A distinguishing feature of RNAO's BPG development portfolio is its integration within RNAO's three-pillar BPG programme. This programme supports health service and academic organizations, Best Practice Spotlight Organizations® (BPSO®), to systematically implement, monitor and evaluate BPGs. Through formal partnerships with these organizations, the BPSO network extends the reach of the BPG programme and provides RNAO with direct feedback from end users, strengthening the relevance of future guideline editions. This article describes RNAO's integrated BPG development methods, outlining how evidence-based recommendations are made to support organizations implementing BPGs. Following extensive pre-development work to shape the purpose and scope of each guideline, an interprofessional expert panel that includes people with lived experience is appointed. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, the expert panel prioritizes research questions and systematic reviews are conducted to determine strong or conditional recommendations. Good practice statements are also included and resources to support guideline implementation and evaluation are formulated including fact sheets, RNAO Clinical Pathways™ and evaluation measures. Draft guidelines undergo external review to ensure relevance and usability. To best serve the needs of organizations implementing BPGs, ongoing efforts are being made to keep RNAO's methods up-to-date and incorporate evaluation data from implementing organizations into the guideline development process.
{"title":"Best Practice Guideline Development Methods: An Integrated Approach Based on the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario's Methods","authors":"Lyndsay Howitt, Amy Burt, Nafsin Nizum, Christine Buchanan, Michelle Rey, Doris Grinspun","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70052","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since 1999, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) has developed best practice guidelines (BPG) to promote consistency and quality of evidence-based care and improve patient, organization and health system outcomes. A distinguishing feature of RNAO's BPG development portfolio is its integration within RNAO's three-pillar BPG programme. This programme supports health service and academic organizations, Best Practice Spotlight Organizations® (BPSO®), to systematically implement, monitor and evaluate BPGs. Through formal partnerships with these organizations, the BPSO network extends the reach of the BPG programme and provides RNAO with direct feedback from end users, strengthening the relevance of future guideline editions. This article describes RNAO's integrated BPG development methods, outlining how evidence-based recommendations are made to support organizations implementing BPGs. Following extensive pre-development work to shape the purpose and scope of each guideline, an interprofessional expert panel that includes people with lived experience is appointed. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, the expert panel prioritizes research questions and systematic reviews are conducted to determine strong or conditional recommendations. Good practice statements are also included and resources to support guideline implementation and evaluation are formulated including fact sheets, RNAO Clinical Pathways™ and evaluation measures. Draft guidelines undergo external review to ensure relevance and usability. To best serve the needs of organizations implementing BPGs, ongoing efforts are being made to keep RNAO's methods up-to-date and incorporate evaluation data from implementing organizations into the guideline development process.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145619328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In our 30 years of producing guidelines, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) has consistently adhered to the principles of Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) [<span>1</span>], prioritising Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) as set out in our SIGN 50 methodology handbook [<span>2</span>]. This commitment to PPI helps SIGN to produce high-quality clinical guidelines, that foster shared decision-making by recognising the outcomes that are important to people with lived experience, their values and their preferences [<span>3-8</span>]. Despite its value in guideline development, we recognise that more evaluation and research is needed to provide evidence of the impact of PPI on guideline quality, acceptability, implementation success and health outcomes [<span>9, 10</span>]. SIGN works in partnership with professionals, the third sector (non-profit organisations and charities), people with lived experience and the public, which enhances our guidelines credibility and helps us to tailor them to meet the real-world needs of all interest-holders [<span>5-8, 11, 12</span>]. In summary, PPI helps to make guideline recommendations better by incorporating patient preferences and values into them, and this helps guideline developers to achieve their aim of enhancing patient care and improving health outcomes [<span>3, 11-14</span>].</p><p>In this commentary we showcase the significance of PPI in the development of clinical guidelines by SIGN, using its dementia guideline [<span>15</span>], as a case example. We provide insights into SIGN's collaborative efforts, reinforcing the importance of diverse perspectives at each stage of the guideline development process.</p><p>The SIGN guideline on Assessment, diagnosis, care and support for people with dementia and their carers was published in 2023 [<span>15</span>]. It encourages all health and social care professionals to adopt person-centred care and treat people living with dementia and unpaid carers as individuals. The methodology we used for developing this guideline is outlined in SIGN 50 [<span>2</span>]. The quotes used to illustrate the commentary are drawn from feedback provided from carers and third sector organisation representatives gathered through surveys conducted during development of the guideline.</p><p>Representatives from third sector organisations and carers of people with dementia were members of our guideline development group and worked in partnership with professionals to produce the guideline. Carers played a crucial role in ensuring that issues that they saw as priorities, such as anticipatory grief, were thoroughly considered and addressed.</p><p>Third sector organisations invited people with dementia and their carers to participate in our guideline development processes to ensure diverse perspectives influenced decisions. We held multiple sessions with people with dementia, to ensure their perspectives were integrated into the wordi
{"title":"Putting People at the Centre of Guidelines","authors":"Karen Graham, Naomi Fearns","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70054","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In our 30 years of producing guidelines, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) has consistently adhered to the principles of Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) [<span>1</span>], prioritising Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) as set out in our SIGN 50 methodology handbook [<span>2</span>]. This commitment to PPI helps SIGN to produce high-quality clinical guidelines, that foster shared decision-making by recognising the outcomes that are important to people with lived experience, their values and their preferences [<span>3-8</span>]. Despite its value in guideline development, we recognise that more evaluation and research is needed to provide evidence of the impact of PPI on guideline quality, acceptability, implementation success and health outcomes [<span>9, 10</span>]. SIGN works in partnership with professionals, the third sector (non-profit organisations and charities), people with lived experience and the public, which enhances our guidelines credibility and helps us to tailor them to meet the real-world needs of all interest-holders [<span>5-8, 11, 12</span>]. In summary, PPI helps to make guideline recommendations better by incorporating patient preferences and values into them, and this helps guideline developers to achieve their aim of enhancing patient care and improving health outcomes [<span>3, 11-14</span>].</p><p>In this commentary we showcase the significance of PPI in the development of clinical guidelines by SIGN, using its dementia guideline [<span>15</span>], as a case example. We provide insights into SIGN's collaborative efforts, reinforcing the importance of diverse perspectives at each stage of the guideline development process.</p><p>The SIGN guideline on Assessment, diagnosis, care and support for people with dementia and their carers was published in 2023 [<span>15</span>]. It encourages all health and social care professionals to adopt person-centred care and treat people living with dementia and unpaid carers as individuals. The methodology we used for developing this guideline is outlined in SIGN 50 [<span>2</span>]. The quotes used to illustrate the commentary are drawn from feedback provided from carers and third sector organisation representatives gathered through surveys conducted during development of the guideline.</p><p>Representatives from third sector organisations and carers of people with dementia were members of our guideline development group and worked in partnership with professionals to produce the guideline. Carers played a crucial role in ensuring that issues that they saw as priorities, such as anticipatory grief, were thoroughly considered and addressed.</p><p>Third sector organisations invited people with dementia and their carers to participate in our guideline development processes to ensure diverse perspectives influenced decisions. We held multiple sessions with people with dementia, to ensure their perspectives were integrated into the wordi","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70054","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145521883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nan Yang, Dong Roman Xu, Janne Estill, Yaolong Chen
The concept of clinical practice guideline has existed for over 30 years, but guidelines still face numerous limitations, including low methodological quality, inadequate reporting transparency, slow implementation, and infrequent updates [1, 2]. There are several barriers in the dynamics between the different steps of the entire process, ranging from guideline development to implementation for which improvements are warranted [3, 4]. The establishment of a cohesive and well-coordinated guideline ecosystem could help to eliminate many barriers across the entire process from development to implementation and address the existing challenges.
The guideline ecosystem encompasses more than the above steps, but we believe these seven are the most fundamental ones and deserve particular attention. Each of the steps will require a thorough evaluation of the current situation, as well as the development of a standardised framework. A standardised framework will outline the relationships between the different steps of the guideline ecosystem, which in turn will help to promote the development, implementation, and updating of high-quality guidelines in a coordinated and transparent manner.
Nan Yang: conceptualization, writing — original draft, visualization. Dong Roman Xu: writing — review and editing, supervision Janne Estill: methodology, writing — review and editing. Yaolong Chen: conceptualization, writing — review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Yaolong Chen is the cofounder and cochair of RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare).
{"title":"Strengthening the Clinical Practice Guideline Ecosystem","authors":"Nan Yang, Dong Roman Xu, Janne Estill, Yaolong Chen","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70051","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The concept of clinical practice guideline has existed for over 30 years, but guidelines still face numerous limitations, including low methodological quality, inadequate reporting transparency, slow implementation, and infrequent updates [<span>1, 2</span>]. There are several barriers in the dynamics between the different steps of the entire process, ranging from guideline development to implementation for which improvements are warranted [<span>3, 4</span>]. The establishment of a cohesive and well-coordinated guideline ecosystem could help to eliminate many barriers across the entire process from development to implementation and address the existing challenges.</p><p>The guideline ecosystem encompasses more than the above steps, but we believe these seven are the most fundamental ones and deserve particular attention. Each of the steps will require a thorough evaluation of the current situation, as well as the development of a standardised framework. A standardised framework will outline the relationships between the different steps of the guideline ecosystem, which in turn will help to promote the development, implementation, and updating of high-quality guidelines in a coordinated and transparent manner.</p><p><b>Nan Yang:</b> conceptualization, writing — original draft, visualization. <b>Dong Roman Xu:</b> writing — review and editing, supervision <b>Janne Estill:</b> methodology, writing — review and editing. <b>Yaolong Chen:</b> conceptualization, writing — review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.</p><p>The authors declare no conflict of interest. Yaolong Chen is the cofounder and cochair of RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare).</p><p>All relevant data are within the manuscript.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145521839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gonzalo Bravo-Soto, Shelly-Anne Li, Gordon Guyatt, Nancy Santesso, Susan M. Jack, Thomas Agoritsas, Francois Lamontagne, John Lavis, Reem A. Mustafa, Bram Rochwerg, Wojtek Wiercioch, Linan Zeng, Ludovic Reveiz, Romina Brignardello-Petersen
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial role of evidence-based practice guidelines (EBPGs) in healthcare systems. Reliable and timely guidelines are essential in health emergencies. This study aims to identify and comprehensively understand the determinants that influence the development and implementation of EBPGs during health emergencies from the perspective of guideline developers and implementers. In this article, we describe the study protocol.
Methodology
We will conduct an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study composed of four phases: (I) a qualitative descriptive study to document the experiences of guideline developers and implementers and use this data to generate a list of determinants that influence the development and implementation of EBPG; (II) exploratory integration for survey development and validation using the data of phase I; (III) cross-sectional study to administer the survey to a large sample and estimate the frequency and perceived impact of those determinants; (IV) interpretation of the results: a combination of qualitative and quantitative findings through the narrative description and joint displays to generate a comprehensive understanding of those determinants. We will explore if results vary across subgroups of interest (participants' roles, gender, and type of organization). We will include people worldwide from five groups participating in an EBPG development and implementation process during the pandemic.
Discussion
This study will provide insights into the determinants that influence the development and implementation of EBPGs during health emergencies. Its potential impact includes improving future health emergency preparedness, addressing equity gaps, and enhancing guideline development and implementation.
{"title":"Understanding the Determinants That Influence the Development and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines During Health Emergencies: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study Protocol","authors":"Gonzalo Bravo-Soto, Shelly-Anne Li, Gordon Guyatt, Nancy Santesso, Susan M. Jack, Thomas Agoritsas, Francois Lamontagne, John Lavis, Reem A. Mustafa, Bram Rochwerg, Wojtek Wiercioch, Linan Zeng, Ludovic Reveiz, Romina Brignardello-Petersen","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70047","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial role of evidence-based practice guidelines (EBPGs) in healthcare systems. Reliable and timely guidelines are essential in health emergencies. This study aims to identify and comprehensively understand the determinants that influence the development and implementation of EBPGs during health emergencies from the perspective of guideline developers and implementers. In this article, we describe the study protocol.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methodology</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will conduct an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study composed of four phases: (I) a qualitative descriptive study to document the experiences of guideline developers and implementers and use this data to generate a list of determinants that influence the development and implementation of EBPG; (II) exploratory integration for survey development and validation using the data of phase I; (III) cross-sectional study to administer the survey to a large sample and estimate the frequency and perceived impact of those determinants; (IV) interpretation of the results: a combination of qualitative and quantitative findings through the narrative description and joint displays to generate a comprehensive understanding of those determinants. We will explore if results vary across subgroups of interest (participants' roles, gender, and type of organization). We will include people worldwide from five groups participating in an EBPG development and implementation process during the pandemic.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study will provide insights into the determinants that influence the development and implementation of EBPGs during health emergencies. Its potential impact includes improving future health emergency preparedness, addressing equity gaps, and enhancing guideline development and implementation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145469532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Healthy athletes have unique physiological, psychological, and interpersonal needs that necessitate individualized prevention and management strategies. As such, this comprehensive protocol has been created to illustrate the scope, quality and coverage of these clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements among this specific population.
Methods and Analysis
Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar and any grey literature within official international organizations. Eligible publications will include CPGs and consensus statements that are aimed towards healthy athletes, published in English or Spanish since 2000. The AGREE II instrument will be applied to assess the quality of the guidelines by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. We will use descriptive statistics to summarize the main characteristics of the guidelines.
Discussion
This scoping review seeks towards providing an in-depth analysis on the mapping, explaining, and evaluating of the available CPGs and consensus statements of the population of healthy athletes. Moreover, it will identify thematic trends, methodological strengths, and potential evidence gaps that currently exist. Fundamentally, the results will provide valuable information towards development of guidelines, standardization efforts, and evidence-based practice in the future within the field of sports medicine.
健康的运动员有独特的生理、心理和人际需求，需要个性化的预防和管理策略。因此，本综合协议的创建是为了说明这些临床实践指南（cpg）的范围、质量和覆盖范围，以及在这一特定人群中的共识声明。方法和分析检索将在PubMed， Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science， EMBASE，谷歌Scholar和任何官方国际组织的灰色文献中进行。符合条件的出版物将包括2000年以来以英语或西班牙语出版的针对健康运动员的cpg和共识声明。两名独立审稿人将采用AGREE II工具来评估指南的质量。分歧将由第三位审稿人解决。我们将使用描述性统计来总结指南的主要特征。本综述旨在对现有cpg的绘制、解释和评估以及健康运动员群体的共识陈述进行深入分析。此外，它将确定主题趋势、方法优势和目前存在的潜在证据差距。从根本上说，这些结果将为未来运动医学领域的指导方针、标准化工作和循证实践的发展提供有价值的信息。
{"title":"Comparing and Assessing Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements for Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review Protocol","authors":"Samyan Shahid, Andres Estupiñán-Bohórquez","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70050","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Healthy athletes have unique physiological, psychological, and interpersonal needs that necessitate individualized prevention and management strategies. As such, this comprehensive protocol has been created to illustrate the scope, quality and coverage of these clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements among this specific population.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar and any grey literature within official international organizations. Eligible publications will include CPGs and consensus statements that are aimed towards healthy athletes, published in English or Spanish since 2000. The AGREE II instrument will be applied to assess the quality of the guidelines by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. We will use descriptive statistics to summarize the main characteristics of the guidelines.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This scoping review seeks towards providing an in-depth analysis on the mapping, explaining, and evaluating of the available CPGs and consensus statements of the population of healthy athletes. Moreover, it will identify thematic trends, methodological strengths, and potential evidence gaps that currently exist. Fundamentally, the results will provide valuable information towards development of guidelines, standardization efforts, and evidence-based practice in the future within the field of sports medicine.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70050","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145375236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Qiyi Zhang, Shichun Wang, Kang An, Arnav Agarwal, Britta Tendal Jeppesen, Per Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas, Heath White, Jun Tang, Wanru Wang, Chuanfeng Tao, Yaolong Chen, Sheyu Li, Yinghui Jin
Introduction
The global burden of type 2 diabetes, emergence of numerous new therapeutics and rapidly evolving evidence calls for trustworthy and current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). This living systematic review of national and international CPGs aims to iteratively summarize recommendations for the management of type 2 diabetes.
Method and Analysis
We will search electronic databases, professional academic association websites and guideline repositories from 2010 to April 1 2024 for national, international, or professional society CPGs addressing the management of type 2 diabetes. Our initial search will be followed by quarterly literature searches. Paired reviewers will independently assess the quality of identified CPGs using AGREE-II. Recommendations and their associated methodological quality will be summarized and made available via a user-friendly interactive online platform.
Discussion
This living systematic review of CPGs will enable clinicians, patients and system-level decision-makers to inform their decision-making based on internationally available CPGs. It will also allow methodologists to identify gaps in evidence and recommendations to inform future directions in research and CPGs development.
{"title":"Recommendation Map for Type 2 Diabetes: A Protocol for a Living Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines","authors":"Qiyi Zhang, Shichun Wang, Kang An, Arnav Agarwal, Britta Tendal Jeppesen, Per Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas, Heath White, Jun Tang, Wanru Wang, Chuanfeng Tao, Yaolong Chen, Sheyu Li, Yinghui Jin","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70049","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The global burden of type 2 diabetes, emergence of numerous new therapeutics and rapidly evolving evidence calls for trustworthy and current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). This living systematic review of national and international CPGs aims to iteratively summarize recommendations for the management of type 2 diabetes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will search electronic databases, professional academic association websites and guideline repositories from 2010 to April 1 2024 for national, international, or professional society CPGs addressing the management of type 2 diabetes. Our initial search will be followed by quarterly literature searches. Paired reviewers will independently assess the quality of identified CPGs using AGREE-II. Recommendations and their associated methodological quality will be summarized and made available via a user-friendly interactive online platform.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This living systematic review of CPGs will enable clinicians, patients and system-level decision-makers to inform their decision-making based on internationally available CPGs. It will also allow methodologists to identify gaps in evidence and recommendations to inform future directions in research and CPGs development.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> PROSPERO Registration Number</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>CRD42023466448 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145316885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kim E. van Nieuwenhuizen, Jeroen B. Guinée, Miranda W. Langendam, Pauline de Heer, Stefanie N. Hofstede, Frank Willem Jansen, Charlotte T. J. Michels, Dutch Expert Panel
Introduction
The global healthcare sector significantly contributes to climate change and other environmental impacts. Despite this, environmental sustainability considerations are often missing from evidence-based clinical guidelines. To address this gap, we developed a methodological guidance report focused on integrating environmental sustainability into clinical guidelines.
Methods
An interdisciplinary expert panel systematically developed this methodological guidance report. Data collection involved expert panel meetings and consultations with stakeholders, based on the development of a sustainability guideline focused on reducing the environmental impact of the operating room (OR). The process included an initial inventory and prioritisation phase, guideline development following the GRADE approach, and finalisation and publication.
Results
The generated insights offer a standardised and readily applicable guidance report for integrating environmental sustainability into clinical guidelines across medical disciplines. This allows guideline developers to implement sustainability considerations in clinical guidelines. Environmental sustainability should be addressed at the start of guideline development, involving interdisciplinary experts. Approaches include integrating environmental outcomes into the PICO framework or adding a search question focused on the environmental impact of interventions. Furthermore, environmental sustainability should be integrated in the Evidence-to-Decision framework. If LCAs are included, both the critical appraisal for study quality of LCAs and the GRADE approach for quality of the evidence are recommended.
Interpretation
This methodological guidance report facilitates a stepwise approach of integrating environmental sustainability into clinical practice through evidence-based guideline development. While further evaluation and implementation in clinical practice is needed, the framework supports more sustainable clinical decision-making and contributes to promoting planetary health.
{"title":"Integrating Environmental Sustainability Into Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines: Methodological Guidance Report","authors":"Kim E. van Nieuwenhuizen, Jeroen B. Guinée, Miranda W. Langendam, Pauline de Heer, Stefanie N. Hofstede, Frank Willem Jansen, Charlotte T. J. Michels, Dutch Expert Panel","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70046","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The global healthcare sector significantly contributes to climate change and other environmental impacts. Despite this, environmental sustainability considerations are often missing from evidence-based clinical guidelines. To address this gap, we developed a methodological guidance report focused on integrating environmental sustainability into clinical guidelines.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An interdisciplinary expert panel systematically developed this methodological guidance report. Data collection involved expert panel meetings and consultations with stakeholders, based on the development of a sustainability guideline focused on reducing the environmental impact of the operating room (OR). The process included an initial inventory and prioritisation phase, guideline development following the GRADE approach, and finalisation and publication.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The generated insights offer a standardised and readily applicable guidance report for integrating environmental sustainability into clinical guidelines across medical disciplines. This allows guideline developers to implement sustainability considerations in clinical guidelines. Environmental sustainability should be addressed at the start of guideline development, involving interdisciplinary experts. Approaches include integrating environmental outcomes into the PICO framework or adding a search question focused on the environmental impact of interventions. Furthermore, environmental sustainability should be integrated in the Evidence-to-Decision framework. If LCAs are included, both the critical appraisal for study quality of LCAs and the GRADE approach for quality of the evidence are recommended.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Interpretation</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This methodological guidance report facilitates a stepwise approach of integrating environmental sustainability into clinical practice through evidence-based guideline development. While further evaluation and implementation in clinical practice is needed, the framework supports more sustainable clinical decision-making and contributes to promoting planetary health.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145146540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Celia Muñoz, Patricia Gavín-Benavent, Silvia Moler-Zapata, Lucía Prieto Remón, María Bono Vega, Soledad Isern de Val, on behalf of GuíaSalud's Working Group on Incorporating Economic Evidence into CPGs
The importance of incorporating economic evidence (EE) such as resource use, cost or cost-effectiveness evidence into Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) is being increasingly recognised by decision makers, including healthcare providers and policy makers. Yet, this is a complex and resource-intensive process. EE can influence recommendations formulated about interventions in CPGs, especially when the desirable and undesirable effects are balanced. A group of methodologists, including health economists, in GuíaSalud (the organisation of the Spanish National Health System (NHS) that coordinates the national CPG Programme), has made important advances in the development of methodological guidance for how to develop evidence-based recommendations. In this article, we present an algorithm for informing decisions about incorporating EE in CPGs. The algorithm has three stages: (1) prioritise clinical questions in the CPG according to the influence that EE is expected to have on recommendations; (2) obtain EE for clinical questions that have been prioritised via a systematic review and/or a de novo economic evaluation; and (3) use EE to inform recommendations in CPG. We show how the algorithm was applied in the development of GuíaSalud's CPG for the management of chronic primary pain. In doing so, we provide specific guidance on how the algorithm could be applied using concrete examples. We show how this algorithm helps to make the process of incorporating EE into CPGs agile, dynamic and reproducible.
{"title":"An Algorithm for Incorporating Economic Evidence Into Clinical Practice Guidelines: Application to the Spanish Guideline for the Management of Chronic Primary Pain","authors":"Celia Muñoz, Patricia Gavín-Benavent, Silvia Moler-Zapata, Lucía Prieto Remón, María Bono Vega, Soledad Isern de Val, on behalf of GuíaSalud's Working Group on Incorporating Economic Evidence into CPGs","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70045","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The importance of incorporating economic evidence (EE) such as resource use, cost or cost-effectiveness evidence into Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) is being increasingly recognised by decision makers, including healthcare providers and policy makers. Yet, this is a complex and resource-intensive process. EE can influence recommendations formulated about interventions in CPGs, especially when the desirable and undesirable effects are balanced. A group of methodologists, including health economists, in GuíaSalud (the organisation of the Spanish National Health System (NHS) that coordinates the national CPG Programme), has made important advances in the development of methodological guidance for how to develop evidence-based recommendations. In this article, we present an algorithm for informing decisions about incorporating EE in CPGs. The algorithm has three stages: (1) prioritise clinical questions in the CPG according to the influence that EE is expected to have on recommendations; (2) obtain EE for clinical questions that have been prioritised via a systematic review and/or a <i>de novo</i> economic evaluation; and (3) use EE to inform recommendations in CPG. We show how the algorithm was applied in the development of GuíaSalud's CPG for the management of chronic primary pain. In doing so, we provide specific guidance on how the algorithm could be applied using concrete examples. We show how this algorithm helps to make the process of incorporating EE into CPGs agile, dynamic and reproducible.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70045","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145146539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Linda Velapi, Sara Cooper, Tamara Kredo, Bey Schmidt
Introduction
Nurses often use clinical practice guidelines to assist them in treating childhood cases. Guidelines provide an easily accessible resource that clinicians can review to expand their knowledge base and determine patient care. Those involved in the guideline development and adaptation process usually have a better understanding when it comes to making use of the guideline. It is imperative to understand how the implementers of guidelines can be involved in the guideline development and adaptation process. The use of a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis is encouraged as it is the most appropriate method for this review because it enables the systematic integration of findings from primary qualitative studies that explore social, contextual, and experiential dimensions. This review seeks to answer the question: What are the views, experiences, and perceived barriers and facilitators of nurses involved in the development or adaptation of clinical practice guidelines? Using the SPIDER framework, this synthesis will focus on qualitative studies involving nurses (S), their participation in guideline development and adaptation (PI), using interviews or focus groups (D), to explore perceptions of engagement, challenges, and enabling factors (E), within a qualitative research paradigm (R).
Objectives
To identify and synthesize studies exploring methods and processes for involving nurses in guideline development and adaptation. To explore the barriers to and facilitators of involving nurses in guideline development and adaptation.
Methods
This review will follow the thematic synthesis approach and will be reported according to the ENTREQ checklist to ensure transparency in synthesis methods and the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reporting of the review process. Searches will be carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Medline and PsycINFO. We will apply thematic content analysis, which involves coding of extracted text, developing descriptive themes and generating analytical themes.
{"title":"Barriers and Facilitators of Nurses' Involvement in Guideline Development and Adaptation: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Protocol","authors":"Linda Velapi, Sara Cooper, Tamara Kredo, Bey Schmidt","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70044","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Nurses often use clinical practice guidelines to assist them in treating childhood cases. Guidelines provide an easily accessible resource that clinicians can review to expand their knowledge base and determine patient care. Those involved in the guideline development and adaptation process usually have a better understanding when it comes to making use of the guideline. It is imperative to understand how the implementers of guidelines can be involved in the guideline development and adaptation process. The use of a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis is encouraged as it is the most appropriate method for this review because it enables the systematic integration of findings from primary qualitative studies that explore social, contextual, and experiential dimensions. This review seeks to answer the question: What are the views, experiences, and perceived barriers and facilitators of nurses involved in the development or adaptation of clinical practice guidelines? Using the SPIDER framework, this synthesis will focus on qualitative studies involving nurses (S), their participation in guideline development and adaptation (PI), using interviews or focus groups (D), to explore perceptions of engagement, challenges, and enabling factors (E), within a qualitative research paradigm (R).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To identify and synthesize studies exploring methods and processes for involving nurses in guideline development and adaptation. To explore the barriers to and facilitators of involving nurses in guideline development and adaptation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review will follow the thematic synthesis approach and will be reported according to the ENTREQ checklist to ensure transparency in synthesis methods and the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reporting of the review process. Searches will be carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Medline and PsycINFO. We will apply thematic content analysis, which involves coding of extracted text, developing descriptive themes and generating analytical themes.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <p><b>Trial registration:</b> PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024580363.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145102153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号