ReviewDer Nervenarzt2023
[Concepts to support dynamic updating processes of guidelines and their practical implementation-Systematic literature review].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPG), which are crucial for evidence-based healthcare, should be kept up to date, especially on topics where emerging evidence could modify one of the recommendations with implications for the healthcare service; however, an updating process, which is practicable for guideline developers as well as users represents a challenge.
objectiveThis article provides an overview of the currently discussed methodological approaches for the dynamic updating of guidelines and systematic reviews. MATERIAL AND
methodsAs part of a scoping review, a literature search was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE (via Ovid), Scopus, Epistemonikos, medRxiv, as well as in study and guideline registers. Concepts on the dynamic updating of guidelines and systematic reviews or dynamically updated guidelines and systematic reviews or their protocols published in English or German were included.
resultsThe publications included most frequently described the following main processes that must be adapted in dynamic updating processes 1) the establishment of continuously working guideline groups, 2) networking between guidelines, 3) the formulation and application of prioritization criteria, 4) the adaptation of the systematic literature search and 5) the use of software tools for increased efficiency and digitalization of the guidelines.
conclusionThe transformation to living guidelines requires a change in the needs for temporal, personnel and structural resources. The digitalization of guidelines and the use of software to increase efficiency are necessary instruments, but alone do not guarantee the realization of living guidelines. A process in which dissemination and implementation must also be integrated is necessary. Standardized best practice recommendations on the updating process are still lacking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37341770What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.