METHODS: We examined CPGs and UpToDate point-of-care resources on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients that had been published as of 30 April 2020 and compared them against the CPG by the WHO. The main outcome was the rate of consistency among CPGs for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence and by excluding single CPGs one at a time.
RESULTS: Thirteen reference recommendations derived from the CPG of the WHO were generated using discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states. Across CPGs, the rate of consistency in direction with the WHO is 7.7%. When insufficient evidence codings were excluded, the rate of consistency increased substantially to 61.5%. The results of a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested that the UpToDate recommendation source could explain the inconsistency. Consistency in direction rates changed by an absolute 23.1% (from 1/13 (7.7%) to 4/13 (30.8%)) if UpToDate was removed.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed inconsistencies between some recommendations of the CPGs and those of the WHO. These inconsistencies should best be addressed by consensus among the relevant bodies to avoid confusion in clinical practice while awaiting clinical trials to inform us of the best practice.
METHODS: The Federation of International Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (FISPGHAN) Working Group (WG) selected care protocols on the management of acute diarrhea in infants and children aged between 1 month and 18 years. The WG used a 3-step approach consisting of: systematic review and comparison of published guidelines, agreement on draft recommendations using Delphi methodology, and external peer-review and validation of recommendations.
RESULTS: A core of recommendations including definition, diagnosis, nutritional management, and active treatment of AGE was developed with an overall agreement of 91% (range 80%-96%). A total of 28 world experts in pediatric gastroenterology and emergency medicine successively validated the set of 23 recommendations with an agreement of 87% (range 83%-95%). Recommendations on the use of antidiarrheal drugs and antiemetics received the lowest level of agreement and need to be tailored at local level. Oral rehydration and probiotics were the only treatments recommended.
CONCLUSIONS: Universal recommendations to assist health care practitioners in managing children with AGE may improve practitioners' compliance with guidelines, reduce inappropriate interventions, and significantly impact clinical outcome and health care-associated costs.
METHODS: Descriptive study design, collecting quantitative data, among pre-selected public healthcare facilities. One healthcare professional from each participating facility, involved in ASPs, was invited to participate.
RESULTS: Overall 26 facilities from 8 provinces participated. Average compliance to the Framework was 59.5% for the 26 facilities, with 38.0% for community health centres, 66.9% for referral hospitals and 73.5% for national central hospitals. For 7 facilities compliance was <50% while 5 facilities were >80% compliant.
CONCLUSION: Although some facilities complied well with the Framework, overall compliance was sub-optimal. With the introduction of universal healthcare in South Africa, coupled with growing AMR rates, ongoing initiatives to actively implement the Framework should be targeted at non-compliant facilities.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and critically appraise medical nutrition therapy guidelines for treating patients with gestational diabetes mellitus.
DESIGN: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, Guidelines International Network, and Google Scholar to retrieve clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for medical nutrition therapy in gestational diabetes mellitus from professional or governmental organizations, published in English, between January 1, 2007, and November 24, 2018. CPGs were reviewed and appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II instrument.
RESULTS: Of 1,286 retrieved articles, 21 CPGs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CPGs of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Diabetes Canada, and Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section received the greatest overall scores and the highest scores concerning rigor of recommendations development. Many CPGs failed to involve multidisciplinary teams in their development, including patients, and often, dietitians. Applicability of the recommendations was low, lacking facilitators and tools to enhance implementation. Many CPGs demonstrated low editorial independence by failing to disclose funding and competing interests. More medical nutrition therapy recommendations were incorporated in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section CPGs. The Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section, Diabetes Canada, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and Endocrine Society guidelines were recommended by the review panel herein without modifications. Overall, the CPGs suggested the consumption of adequate protein and the selection of foods with low glycemic index, divided into three main meals and two to four snacks. Weight gain recommendations were mostly based on the Institute of Medicine body mass index thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, the main developmental limitations of the appraised CPGs involved low rigor of recommendations development, lack of multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, low applicability, and inadequate editorial independence. This indicates a need for developing more clear, unbiased, practical, and evidence-based CPGs.
METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo.
RESULTS: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD.
CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.
METHODS: Retrospective case review of children <6 years-old with liquid paracetamol overdoses referred to a regional poisons information centre January 2017 to August 2022. We extracted data on the exposure and management from the poisons information centre and hospital medical records. We identified additional cases with two paracetamol concentrations obtained from September 2022 to June 2024.
RESULTS: Of 437 paediatric poisonings, 271 were eligible for inclusion. The median age was 24 months, the median time to presentation was 120 min, and paracetamol was the sole ingestant in 92% of cases. Blood testing was recommended in 131 patients (48.3%), occurring at 2 h post-ingestion in 62 patients (47.3%). Testing at a later time was mostly due to delayed presentation, including to hospitals unable to measure paracetamol concentrations. Eighteen patients (16.7%) had repeat blood testing, and five additional cases were identified in the subsequent period. Overall, the concentration decreased in 19 patients (83%), but in three patients it increased, from 73 mg/L to 81 mg/L (0.49-0.54 mmol/L), from 154 mg/L to 179 mg/L (1.03-1.19 mmol/L), and from 56 mg/L to 115 mg/L (0.37-0.77 mmol/L). Symptomatic patients were more likely to receive a second blood test or acetylcysteine while awaiting investigations. Of 19 patients administered acetylcysteine, it was discontinued in five due to low paracetamol serum concentrations. All patients recovered.
DISCUSSION: Guidelines were followed in >90% of patients and this testing regimen shortened length of stay. Based on these data, Australian treatment guidelines now recommend repeat testing for 2 h paracetamol serum concentrations >100 mg/L (0.67 mmol/L).
CONCLUSION: A paracetamol serum concentration between 2 h and 4 h post-ingestion in children <6 years-old with unintentional poisonings of paracetamol liquid can facilitate medical discharge.
METHODS: We adopted multiple adaptive strategies including changes to stratification of surgeries, out-patient services by urgency and hospital alert status, policy writing involving multidisciplinary teams, and redeployment of manpower. Modifications were made to teaching activities and skills training to observe social distancing and mitigate reduced operative learning opportunities. Roles of academic staff were expanded to include non-surgical duties.
RESULTS: The planned strategies and changes to pre COVID-19 practices were successful in ensuring minimal disruption to the delivery of essential paediatric surgical services and training. Despite the lack of established guidelines and literature outlining strategies to address the impact of this pandemic on surgical services, most of the initial measures employed were consistent with that of other surgical centres.
CONCLUSION: Changes to delivery of surgical services and surgical training warrant a holistic approach and a constant re-evaluation of practices with emergence of new experiences and guidelines.
METHODS: In October 2018, the BHGI convened the Sixth Global Summit on Improving Breast Healthcare Through Resource-Stratified Phased Implementation. The purpose of the summit was to define a stepwise methodology (phased implementation) for guiding the translation of resource-appropriate breast cancer control guidelines into real-world practice. Three expert consensus panels developed stepwise, resource-appropriate recommendations for implementing these guidelines in low-income and middle-income countries as well as underserved communities in high-income countries. Each panel focused on 1 of 3 specific aspects of breast cancer care: 1) early detection, 2) treatment, and 3) health system strengthening.
RESULTS: Key findings from the summit and subsequent article preparation included the identification of phased-implementation prerequisites that were explored during consensus debates. These core issues and concepts are key components for implementing breast health care that consider real-world resource constraints. Communication and engagement across all levels of care is vital to any effectively operating health care system, including effective communication with ministries of health and of finance, to demonstrate needs, outcomes, and cost benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: Underserved communities at all economic levels require effective strategies to deploy scarce resources to ensure access to timely, effective, and affordable health care. Systematically strategic approaches translating guidelines into practice are needed to build health system capacity to meet the current and anticipated global breast cancer burden.
METHODS: Six key sections were chosen: (1) high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) oligometastatic prostate cancer, (3) castration-naïve prostate cancer, (4) castrate resistant prostate cancer, (5) use of osteoclast-targeted therapy and (6) global access to prostate cancer drugs. There were 101 consensus questions, consisting of 91 questions from APCCC 2017 and 10 new questions from MyAPCCC 2018, selected and modified by the steering committee; of which, 23 questions were assessed in both ideal world and real-world settings. A panel of 22 experts, comprising of 11 urologists and 11 oncologists, voted on 101 predefined questions anonymously. Final voting results were compared with the APCCC 2017 outcomes.
RESULTS: Most voting results from the MyAPCCC 2018 were consistent with the APCCC 2017 outcomes. No consensus was achieved for controversial topics with little level I evidence, such as management of oligometastatic disease. No consensus was reached on using high-cost drugs in castration-naïve or castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer in real-world settings. All panellists recommended using generic drugs when available.
CONCLUSIONS: The MyAPCCC 2018 voting results reflect the management of advanced prostate cancer in a middle-income country in a real-world setting. These results may serve as a guide for local clinical practices and highlight the financial challenges in modern healthcare.