Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740810›Full record

ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2024

Lifespan of COVID-19 living guideline recommendations: A survival analysis.

Emma McFarlane, Toby Mercer, Steve Sharp, Debra Hunter, Kate Kelley, Fiona Glen, Maria Majeed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Emma McFarlaneNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence Manchester UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9276-227X
Toby MercerNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence Manchester UK.
Steve SharpNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence Manchester UK.
Debra HunterNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence Manchester UK.
Kate KelleyNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence Manchester UK.
Fiona GlenNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence Manchester UK.
Maria MajeedNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence Manchester UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: NICE has maintained a portfolio of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) living guidelines since March 2020. Recommendations within these living guidelines are subject to continuous surveillance and updates in response to triggers. However, the lifespan of individual living guideline recommendations and features that may impact whether a recommendation becomes out of date sooner is unknown. Objectives: This study describes the length of time NICE COVID-19 living guideline recommendations have remained valid. Methods: All guidelines within NICE's COVID-19 portfolio were included to determine the lifespan of living guideline recommendations. Data were collected on all recommendations that had been developed, undergone surveillance or updated between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2022. The initial publication date, decision to update and updated publication date were extracted. Updates were labelled as major changes in evidence synthesis or minor changes without a substantial change in the evidence base. Any recommendation that had not been updated or withdrawn was censored. Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier curve) was carried out to determine the lifespan of recommendations. Results: Overall, 26 COVID-19 living guidelines and 1182 recommendations were included in the analysis. Living recommendations had a median survival time of 739 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 332, 781). Based on recommendation type, intervention recommendations had a shorter survival time (354 days, IQR: 312, 775) compared to diagnosis (368 days, IQR: 328, 795), patient experience (733 days, IQR: 345, 795) and service delivery (739 days, IQR: 643, 781). Within intervention type, pharmacological recommendations had the shortest survival time versus nonpharmacological recommendations (335 days, IQR: 161, 775 vs. 775 days, IQR: 354, 775). Updates were published an average of 29.12 days following a surveillance decision. Conclusion: Within living guidelines, some recommendations need to be updated sooner than others. This study outlines the value of a flexible responsive approach to surveillance according to the pace of change and expectation of update triggers.

Indexed as

COVID‐19lifespan of recommendationsliving guidelinesupdating guidelines

Identifiers

PMID42740810
PMCPMC13563357

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.