Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Internal Medicine, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
  • 2 Institute for Drug Research, School of Pharmacy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  • 3 Department of Clinical Analysis, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
  • 4 Department of Public Health, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  • 5 Pediatric Neurology Department, CRMR Epilepsies Rares, EpiCare Member, Robert Debré University Hospital APHP, Paris, France
  • 6 Department of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia, Malaysia
  • 7 Paediatric Neurology Department, King Fahad Specialist Hospital Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
  • 8 Oxford Epilepsy Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
  • 9 KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Programme, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kilifi, Kenya
  • 10 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
  • 11 Multidisciplinary Service Specialized in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy, International Institute of Neurosciences Edmond and Lily Safra-Santos Dumont Institute, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
  • 12 Division of Epilepsy, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • 13 UOC di Neurologia, South Tyrol Center for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Epilepsy, Italy
  • 14 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Epilepsia, 2025 Jan 29.
PMID: 39878760 DOI: 10.1111/epi.18286

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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications