Chika Agbassi1, Hans Messersmith1, Sheila McNair1, Melissa Brouwers2. 1. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8, Canada; Escarpment Cancer Research Institute (ECRI), Juravinski Hospital Research Centre, 711 Concession Street, G Wing, Hamilton, Ontario, L8V 1C3, Canada; Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario McMaster University, Juravinski Site, 60 (G) Wing, 711 Concession Street Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8V 1C3. 2. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8, Canada; Escarpment Cancer Research Institute (ECRI), Juravinski Hospital Research Centre, 711 Concession Street, G Wing, Hamilton, Ontario, L8V 1C3, Canada; Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario McMaster University, Juravinski Site, 60 (G) Wing, 711 Concession Street Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8V 1C3. Electronic address: mbrouwer@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: New evidence continues to emerge and requires attention after the release of a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The objective of this article is to describe the Document Assessment and Review (DAR) strategy designed to ensue that the CPGs remain current and their quality maintained and to present the results of two iteration of its implementation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The DAR process involves an annual assessment of our CPGs and a review of documents that require an update search. Two questionnaires are used to conduct the annual assessment and the review. The review involves evidence search, evidence review, and review approval. RESULTS: In 2011, 109 documents were assessed; 22 (20%) were archived, 1 (1%) was deferred for assessment in 2012, 24 (22%) were considered special cases and 62 (57%) needed a new systematic review of the evidence. Of those 62, 19 (31%) were categorized as urgent, 16 (26%) as high, and others as medium or low priority. In 2012, 88 total documents were assessed; 15 (17%) were archived, 32 (36%) deferred, 3 (3%) were considered special cases, and 38 (43%) were prioritized for review. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment and prioritization of existing CPGs are effective ways of ensuring that resources are directed toward the upkeep of those that are relevant and of highest priority.
OBJECTIVES: New evidence continues to emerge and requires attention after the release of a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The objective of this article is to describe the Document Assessment and Review (DAR) strategy designed to ensue that the CPGs remain current and their quality maintained and to present the results of two iteration of its implementation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The DAR process involves an annual assessment of our CPGs and a review of documents that require an update search. Two questionnaires are used to conduct the annual assessment and the review. The review involves evidence search, evidence review, and review approval. RESULTS: In 2011, 109 documents were assessed; 22 (20%) were archived, 1 (1%) was deferred for assessment in 2012, 24 (22%) were considered special cases and 62 (57%) needed a new systematic review of the evidence. Of those 62, 19 (31%) were categorized as urgent, 16 (26%) as high, and others as medium or low priority. In 2012, 88 total documents were assessed; 15 (17%) were archived, 32 (36%) deferred, 3 (3%) were considered special cases, and 38 (43%) were prioritized for review. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment and prioritization of existing CPGs are effective ways of ensuring that resources are directed toward the upkeep of those that are relevant and of highest priority.
Authors: Laura Martínez García; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Ena Niño de Guzman; Cecilia Superchi; Monica Ballesteros; Emma McFarlane; Katrina Penman; Margarita Posso; Marta Roqué I Figuls; Andrea Juliana Sanabria; Anna Selva; Robin Wm Vernooij; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.692
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
Authors: Amena El-Harakeh; Tamara Lotfi; Ali Ahmad; Rami Z Morsi; Racha Fadlallah; Lama Bou-Karroum; Elie A Akl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240