Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30005712›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Development of rapid guidelines: 1. Systematic survey of current practices and methods.

Sergio C Kowalski, Rebecca L Morgan, Maicon Falavigna, Iván D Florez, Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Wojtek Wiercioch, Yuan Zhang, Faria Sakhia, Liudmila Ivanova, Nancy Santesso and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The CSN COVID-19 Rapid Response Program.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sergio C KowalskiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Rebecca L MorganDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Maicon FalavignaHospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Iván D FlorezDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Itziar Etxeandia-IkobaltzetaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Wojtek WierciochDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Yuan ZhangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Faria SakhiaPublic Health & Preventive Medicine Residency Program (including Family Medicine), McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Liudmila IvanovaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Nancy SantessoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada. schuneh@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines in the healthcare field generally should contain evidence-based recommendations to inform healthcare decisions. Guidelines often require 2 years or more to develop, but certain circumstances necessitate the development of rapid guidelines (RGs) in a short period of time. Upholding methodological rigor while meeting the reduced development timeframe presents a challenge for developing RGs. Our objective was to review current practices and standards for the development of RGs. This is the first of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs.

methodsWe conducted a systematic survey of methods manuals and published RGs to identify reasons for the development of RGs. Data sources included existing guideline manuals, published RGs, Trip Medical Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and communication with guideline developers until February 2018.

resultsWe identified 46 guidelines that used a shortened timeframe for their development. Nomenclature describing RGs varied across organisations, wherein the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced 'Interim Guidelines', the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom developed 'Short Clinical Guidelines', and WHO provided 'Rapid Advice'. The rationale for RGs included response to emergencies, rapid increases in cases of a condition or disease severity, or new evidence regarding treatment. In general, the methods to assess the quality of evidence, the consensus process and the management of the conflict of interest were not always clear. While we identified another 11 RGs from other institutions, there was no reference to timeframe and reasons for conducting a RG. The three organisations mentioned above provide guidance for the development of RGs.

conclusionsThere is a lack of standardised nomenclature and definitions regarding RGs and there is inconsistency in the methods described in manuals and in RG. It is therefore important that all RGs provide a detailed and transparent description of their methods in order for readers and end-users to be able to assess their quality and validate their findings.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksEmergenciesEvidence-Based MedicineInformation DisseminationPractice Guidelines as TopicPublic HealthConsensusDatabases, FactualDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHealth ResourcesHumansPolicy MakingPublicationsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomClinical guidelinesEmergenciesGuidelineGuideline developmentMethodologyRapid reviews

Identifiers

PMID30005712
PMCPMC6044042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.