ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2024
Living methods for living guidelines: Changes to evidence synthesis methods in the Australian National Clinical Evidence Taskforce COVID-19 living guidelines.
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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Living evidence methods, such as those used to produce living guidelines, can evolve over time as the context or evidence changes. In Australia, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing living guidelines for the management and care of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since March 2020, undertaking daily searches, and producing over 130 updates of more than 200 recommendations. Over the 3 years of the guidelines, the methods have also been 'living'. In this paper, we describe why, how and with what impact changes to our methods have been made. When changes were required to the methods, the Taskforce Evidence Team developed a 'Methods Brief' outlining the proposed changes, rationale and any risks. This was presented to the Guidelines Leadership Group for approval and to the Steering Committee for noting. Changes were then reflected in the online, publicly available description of our methods. Methods to develop the living guidelines evolved through five phases, reflecting changes in the availability of evidence, the degree and nature of clinical uncertainty and resource availability. Largely these changes were to the criteria we used to select evidence for inclusion, and our expected level of responsiveness to new evidence. In the initial phases, inclusion criteria were very broad, and as the evidence base stabilised our focus narrowed to areas of high clinical importance and evidence certainty. The rapidly evolving nature of the pandemic, understanding of the illness, clinical questions and evidence base during development of the living COVID-19 guidelines, necessitated multiple changes to the methods used to produce the guidelines. In this context, the ongoing revision of the methods for living guideline production was a necessity and a strength of the living approach. Questions remain about how best to ensure rigour is maintained while methods evolve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.