| 1. |
- Eslava-Schmalbach, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Considering health equity when moving from evidence-based guideline recommendations to implementation : a case study from an upper-middle income country on the GRADE approach
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Health Policy and Planning. - : Oxford University Press. - 0268-1080 .- 1460-2237. ; 32:10, s. 1484-1490
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The availability of evidence-based guidelines does not ensure their implementation and use in clinical practice or policy making. Inequities in health have been defined as those inequalities within or between populations that are avoidable, unnecessary and also unjust and unfair. Evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines ('guidelines') can be used to target health inequities experienced by disadvantaged populations, although guidelines may unintentionally increase health inequities. For this reason, there is a need for evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines to intentionally target health inequities experienced by disadvantaged populations. Current guideline development processes do not include steps for planned implementation of equity-focused guidelines. This article describes nine steps that provide guidance for consideration of equity during guideline implementation. A critical appraisal of the literature followed by a process to build expert consensus was undertaken to define how to include consideration of equity issues during the specific GRADE guideline development process. Using a case study from Colombia we describe nine steps that were used to implement equity-focused GRADE recommendations: (1) identification of disadvantaged groups, (2) quantification of current health inequities, (3) development of equity-sensitive recommendations, (4) identification of key actors for implementation of equity-focused recommendations, (5) identification of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of equity-focused recommendations, (6) development of an equity strategy to be included in the implementation plan, (7) assessment of resources and incentives, (8) development of a communication strategy to support an equity focus and (9) development of monitoring and evaluation strategies. This case study can be used as model for implementing clinical practice guidelines, taking into account equity issues during guideline development and implementation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hultcrantz, Monica, et al.
(författare)
-
The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Pergamon Press. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 87, s. 4-13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Results: Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. Conclusion: It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kepp, Kasper P., et al.
(författare)
-
Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 173
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lahdeoja, Tuomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 54:11, s. 665-
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To determine the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery in adult patients with subacromial pain syndrome lasting for more than 3 months. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Main outcome measures Pain, physical function and health-related quality of life. Data sources Systematic searches for benefits and harms were conducted to 23 July 2018 in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing subacromial decompression surgery for subacromial pain syndrome with any other treatment(s). For harms, we included prospective cohort studies. Review methods Two reviewers independently determined eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies. Thirty patients seeking primary or outpatient care for subacromial pain syndrome and a parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input regarding systematic review design and interpretation. Results There was high certainty evidence of no additional benefit of subacromial decompression surgery over placebo surgery in reducing pain at 1 year following surgery (mean difference [MD] -0.26, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.33, minimally important difference [MID] 1.5) or improving physical function at 1-2 years (MD 2.8, 95% CI -1.4 to 6.9, MID 8.3). There was moderate certainty evidence for no additional benefit of subacromial decompression surgery on health-related quality of life at 1 year (MD -0.03 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.06, MID 0.07). There was moderate certainty evidence for six serious harms per 1000 (95% CI 5 to 7) patients undergoing subacromial decompression. Conclusion Subacromial decompression surgery provided no important benefit compared with placebo surgery or exercise therapy, and probably carries a small risk of serious harms. Systematic reviewregistration number CRD42018086862.
|
|
| 5. |
- Mullan, Rebecca J, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 62:2, s. 138-142
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Author contact can enhance the quality of systematic reviews. We conducted a systematic review of the practice of author contact in recently published systematic reviews to characterize its prevalence, quality, and results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible studies were systematic reviews of efficacy published in 2005-2006 in the 25 journals with the highest impact factor publishing systematic reviews in clinical medicine and the Cochrane Library, identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers determined whether and why reviewers contacted authors. To assess the accuracy of the abstracted data, we surveyed reviewers by e-mail. RESULTS: Forty-six (50%) of the 93 eligible systematic reviews published in top journals and 46 (85%) of the 54 eligible Cochrane reviews reported contacting authors of eligible studies. Requests were made most commonly for missing information: 40 (76%) clinical medicine reviews and 45 (98%) Cochrane reviews. One hundred and nine of 147 (74%) reviewers responded to the survey, and reported a higher rate of author contact than apparent from the published record. CONCLUSION: Although common, author contact is not a universal feature of systematic reviews published in top journals and the Cochrane Library. The conduct and reporting of author contact purpose, procedures, and results require improvement.
|
|
| 6. |
- Vandvik, Per Olav, et al.
(författare)
-
Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline
- 2019
-
Ingår i: The BMJ. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 1756-1833. ; 364
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Clinical question Do adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery. Current practice SAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations. Recommendation The guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery. How this guideline was created A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on (a) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and (b) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation. The evidence Surgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery. Understanding the recommendation The panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best.
|
|
