Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30922227›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Strategies for eliciting and synthesizing evidence for guidelines in rare diseases.

Menaka Pai, Cindy H T Yeung, Elie A Akl, Andrea Darzi, Christopher Hillis, Kimberly Legault, Joerg J Meerpohl, Nancy Santesso, Domenica Taruscio, Madeleine Verhovsek and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Guideline
  8. Guideline
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors.

Menaka PaiMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. mpai@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-6053-689X
Cindy H T YeungMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Elie A AklMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Andrea DarziAmerican University of Beirut GRADE Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Christopher HillisMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Kimberly LegaultMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Joerg J MeerpohlCochrane Germany, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Nancy SantessoMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Domenica TaruscioNational Center for Rare Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Madeleine VerhovsekMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Alfonso IorioMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRare diseases are a global public health priority. Though each disease is rare, when taken together the thousands of known rare diseases cause significant morbidity and mortality, impact quality of life, and confer a social and economic burden on families and communities. These conditions are, by their nature, encountered very infrequently by individual clinicians, who may feel unprepared to address their diagnosis and treatment. Clinical practice guidelines are necessary to support clinical and policy decisions. However, creating guidelines for rare diseases presents specific challenges, including a paucity of high certainty evidence to inform panel recommendations.

methodsThis paper draws from the authors' experience in the development of clinical practice guidelines for three rare diseases: hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome.

resultsWe have summarized a number of strategies for eliciting and synthesizing evidence that are compatible with the rigorous, internationally accepted standards for guideline development set out by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. These strategies include: use of pre-existing and ad hoc qualitative research, use of systematic observation forms, use of registry data, and thoughtful use of indirect evidence. Their use in three real guideline development efforts, as well as their theoretical underpinnings, are discussed. Avenues for future research to improve clinical practice guideline creation for rare diseases - and any disease affected by a relative lack of evidence - are also identified.

conclusionsRigorous clinical practice guidelines are needed to improve the care of the millions of people worldwide who suffer from rare diseases. Innovative evidence elicitation and synthesis methods will benefit not only the rare disease community, but also individuals with common diseases who have rare presentations, suffer rare complications, or require nascent therapies. Further refinement and improved uptake of these innovative methods should lead to higher quality clinical practice guidelines in rare diseases.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality of LifeRare DiseasesClinical practice guidelineEvidence-based medicineHealth care quality, access, and evaluationRare diseases

Identifiers

PMID30922227
PMCPMC6437842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.