METHOD: A literature search for acne CPGs published between January 2008 and September 2013 was conducted. Two reviewers independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. METHODological quality was evaluated by ranking in AGREE II domains and the highest number of items scoring above the neutral threshold score.
RESULTS: Four CPGs fulfilled the selection criteria, and the highest ranked were the European and Malaysian. Highest scores achieved by the former were for scope/purpose, stakeholder involvement, and rigor of development and by the latter were for scope/purpose, clarity of presentation, and applicability. Applicability was the lowest scoring of all domains for all CPGs.
CONCLUSION: European and Malaysian acne CPGs were ranked highest for methodological quality and may serve to inform clinical practice and guideline adaptation.
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: 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).
METHODS: CPGs for the management of hypertension in Southeast Asia were retrieved from the websites of the Ministry of Health or cardiovascular specialty societies of the individual countries of Southeast Asia during November to December 2020. The recommendations for the management of hypertension specified in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline and the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guideline were selected to be the reference standards; the recommendations concerning the management of hypertension in the included CPGs in Southeast Asia were assessed if they were concordant with the reference recommendations generated from both the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline, using the population (P)-intervention (I)-comparison (C) combinations approach.
RESULTS: A total of 59 reference recommendations with unique and unambiguous P-I-C specifications was generated from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. In addition, a total of 51 reference recommendations with unique and unambiguous P-I-C specifications was generated from the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline. Considering the six included CPGs from Southeast Asia, concordance was observed for 30 reference recommendations (50.8%) out of 59 reference recommendations generated from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and for 31 reference recommendations (69.8%) out of 51 reference recommendations derived from the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline.
CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension represents a significant issue that places health and economic strains in Southeast Asia and demands guideline-based care, yet CPGs in Southeast Asia have a high rate of non-concordance with internationally reputable CPGs. Concordant recommendations could perhaps be considered a standard of care for hypertension management in the Southeast Asia region.
METHODS: We conducted this systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Various databases were searched for CPGs and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. We also summarized the treatments plans of CPGs across continuum of care (diagnosis and assessment, treatment initiation, pharmacotherapy and psychosocial).
RESULTS: This review included 28 CPGs of varying qualities. CPGs from high-income countries and international organizations rated high for their methodological quality. Most CPGs scored high for the scope and purpose domain and scored low for applicability domain. Recommendations for the continuum of care for OUD varied across CPGs. Buprenorphine was recommended in most of the CPGs, followed by methadone. Recommendations for psychosocial interventions also varied, with cognitive behaviour therapies and counselling or education being the common recommendations in many CPGs WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: We found most CPGs have scope and purpose and clarity of presentation. However, the methodological rigour and applicability scored low. CPGs need to frame health questions in a comprehensible manner and provide an update as evidence grows. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations.