E Parmelli1, D Papini2, L Moja3, E Bandieri4, M Belfiglio5, G Ciccone6, R De Palma2, M Leoni7, G Longo8, N Magrini4, I Moschetti2, A Liberati9. 1. Department of Oncology, Ematologia e Patologie dell'Apparato Respiratorio, Università degli Studi di Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milano. Electronic address: elena.parmelli@unimore.it. 2. Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale, Regione Emilia Romagna, Bologna. 3. Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milano. 4. Centro Valutazione Efficacia Assistenza Sanitaria, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Modena. 5. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Epidemiology, Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, Santa Maria Inbaro, Chieti. 6. Centro Prevenzione Oncologica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria San Giovanni Battista, Torino. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Ravenna. 8. Department of Oncology, Ematologia e Patologie dell'Apparato Respiratorio, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico, Modena, Italy. 9. Department of Oncology, Ematologia e Patologie dell'Apparato Respiratorio, Università degli Studi di Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milano; Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale, Regione Emilia Romagna, Bologna.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: clinical guidelines can improve quality of care summarising available knowledge and proposing recommendations for health care decisions. Being up to date is one of their quality requisites. Little experience is available on when and how guidelines should be updated. We report on the update process of evidence-based clinical recommendations on anticancer drugs. METHODS: three multidisciplinary panels, supported by methodology experts, updated the recommendations. The methodologists were in charge of the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence. The panels were responsible for the final decision about risk/benefit profile of the drugs and strength of the recommendations. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used. RESULTS: six recommendations out of 15 were completely updated in 8 months time. In four cases, the strength of the recommendation changed; in two of them, we moved from a weak to a strong positive one. Despite the increased certainty about the positive risk/benefit profile, this was translated in a change in the strength of the recommendation only in one case out of three. Three recommendations were refined making them more clinically specific. CONCLUSIONS: accumulation of evidence is an opportunity for guideline panels to refine methodological rigour, clinical relevance and to foster consensus on recommendations. This requires time and resource investments.
BACKGROUND: clinical guidelines can improve quality of care summarising available knowledge and proposing recommendations for health care decisions. Being up to date is one of their quality requisites. Little experience is available on when and how guidelines should be updated. We report on the update process of evidence-based clinical recommendations on anticancer drugs. METHODS: three multidisciplinary panels, supported by methodology experts, updated the recommendations. The methodologists were in charge of the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence. The panels were responsible for the final decision about risk/benefit profile of the drugs and strength of the recommendations. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used. RESULTS: six recommendations out of 15 were completely updated in 8 months time. In four cases, the strength of the recommendation changed; in two of them, we moved from a weak to a strong positive one. Despite the increased certainty about the positive risk/benefit profile, this was translated in a change in the strength of the recommendation only in one case out of three. Three recommendations were refined making them more clinically specific. CONCLUSIONS: accumulation of evidence is an opportunity for guideline panels to refine methodological rigour, clinical relevance and to foster consensus on recommendations. This requires time and resource investments.
Authors: Laura Martínez García; Ingrid Arévalo-Rodríguez; Ivan Solà; R Brian Haynes; Per Olav Vandvik; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Ephraim D V Gambito; Consuelo B Gonzalez-Suarez; Karen A Grimmer; Carolina M Valdecañas; Janine Margarita R Dizon; Ma Eulalia J Beredo; Marcelle Theresa G Zamora Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2015-11-04
Authors: Laura Martínez García; Andrea Juliana Sanabria; Ignacio Araya; Jennifer Lawson; R Brian Haynes; David Rigau; Ivan Solà; Petra Díaz Del Campo; Maria Dolors Estrada; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Elvira García Álvarez; Javier Gracia; Anna Kotzeva; Arturo Louro-González; Flavia Salcedo-Fernandez; Maria Mar Trujillo-Martín; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Rebecca Jeffery; Tamara Navarro; Cynthia Lokker; R Brian Haynes; Nancy L Wilczynski; George Farjou Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Robin W M Vernooij; Laura Martínez García; Ivan Dario Florez; Laura Hidalgo Armas; Michiel H F Poorthuis; Melissa Brouwers; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 7.327