Updating clinical guidelines
Presentation and justification items at recommendation level (respectively reported by 27 and 38% of the CGs) and the methods used for the external review and implementing changes in practice were particularly poorly reported (both reported by 38% of the CGs).
CGs developed by a European or international institution obtained a statistically significant higher overall score compared to North American or Asian institutions (The reporting of updated CGs varies considerably with significant room for improvement.
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline to the extent it was applicable to our study [We included all updated CGs published in 2015 (as the most recent year prior to publication of Check Up) which met the following criteria: (1) developed by a professional society, (2) search strategy using at least one bibliographic database, (3) reporting at least one recommendation, (4) updated version of a previous version of the same CG (including a reference to a previous version of the CG), and (5) published in English.
Two reviewers (RV, IDF, LHA, or MHFP) independently screened the titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible references.
Check Up consists of three domains: (1) presentation of the updated CG (6 items), (2) editorial independence (3 items), and (3) the methodology of the updating process (7 items).
Three reviewers (RV, IDF, LHA, or MHFP) independently evaluated each CG with Check Up, and whenever the included CGs referred to supplemental documents (e.g.
We calculated domain scores (median and range) by summing up all scores of the individual items for each domain: presentation of the updated CG (6 items), editorial independence (3 items), and the methodology of the updating process (7 items).
Additionally, we calculated the overall score (median and range) by summing up all scores of the individual items.
To identify potential predictors, we used multiple linear regression to test whether the overall score (dependent variable) differed between CG institution’s country, type of organisation, objective of the CG, and CG topic (independent variables).We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods.Methods We developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing…In total, 25 (41.7%; 25/60) of the included CGs addressed the management of a specific disease.Other CGs address solely the treatment (25.0%; 15/60), screening (15.0%; 9/60), diagnosis (11.7%; 7/60), or prevention (6.7%; 4/60) of a healthcare problem.
We performed a systematic search to identify updated CGs published in 2015, developed by a professional society, reporting a systematic review of the evidence, and containing at least one recommendation.