Literature DB >> 27097885

RAPADAPTE for rapid guideline development: high-quality clinical guidelines can be rapidly developed with limited resources.

Brian S Alper1, Mario Tristan2, Anggie Ramirez-Morera2, Maria M T Vreugdenhil2, Esther J Van Zuuren3, Zbys Fedorowicz4.   

Abstract

Guideline development is challenging, expensive and labor-intensive. A high-quality guideline with 90 recommendations for breast cancer treatment was developed within 6 months with limited resources in Costa Rica. We describe the experience and propose a process others can use and adapt.The ADAPTE method (using existing guidelines to minimize repeating work that has been done) was used but existing guidelines were not current. The method was extended to use databases that systematically identify, appraise and synthesize evidence for clinical application (DynaMed, EBM Guidelines) to provide current evidence searches and critical appraisal of evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Draft recommendations with supporting evidence were provided to panel members for facilitated voting to target panel discussion to areas necessary for reaching consensus.Training panelists in guideline development methodology facilitated rapid consensus development. Extending 'guideline adaptation' to 'evidence database adaptation' was highly effective and efficient. Methods were created to simplify mapping DynaMed evidence ratings to GRADE ratings. Twelve steps are presented to facilitate rapid guideline development and enable further adaptation by others.This is a case report and the RAPADAPTE method was retrospectively derived. Prospective replication and validation will support advances for the guideline development community. If guideline development can be accelerated without compromising validity and relevance of the resulting recommendations this would greatly improve our ability to impact clinical care.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical guidelines; evidence-based medicine; guideline adaptation; guideline development; low-middle income countries

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27097885     DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzw044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care        ISSN: 1353-4505            Impact factor:   2.038


  6 in total

1.  Improving the Applicability and Feasibility of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Primary Care: Recommendations for Guideline Development and Implementation.

Authors:  Lu Han; Linan Zeng; Yanjun Duan; Kexin Chen; Jiajie Yu; Honghao Li; Qiusha Yi; Youping Li; Lingli Zhang
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2021-08-22

2.  Rapid guidelines - timely and important guidance needed for setting standards and best practices.

Authors:  Tikki Pang; Gianna Gayle Herrera Amul
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2018-06-12

Review 3.  A mapping study and recommendations for a joint NGO (Think Pink) and Bahrain Government Breast Cancer project.

Authors:  Julie Sprakel; Helio Carrara; Bruce M Manzer; Zbys Fedorowicz
Journal:  J Evid Based Med       Date:  2019-08

4.  Current practices and challenges in adaptation of clinical guidelines: a qualitative study based on semistructured interviews.

Authors:  Yang Song; Monica Ballesteros; Jing Li; Laura Martínez García; Ena Niño de Guzmán; Robin W M Vernooij; Elie A Akl; Francoise Cluzeau; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)?

Authors:  Bernd W M Arents; Esther J van Zuuren; Sofieke Vermeulen; Jan W Schoones; Zbys Fedorowicz
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 11.113

6.  Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Iain J Marshall; Rachel Marshall; Byron C Wallace; Jon Brassey; James Thomas
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-12-25       Impact factor: 6.437

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.