Monika Becker1, Thomas Jaschinski2, Michaela Eikermann3, Tim Mathes2, Stefanie Bühn2, Wolfgang Koppert4, Andreas Leffler4, Edmund Neugebauer5, Dawid Pieper2. 1. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: monika.becker@uni-wh.de. 2. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany. 3. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany; Department of Evidence Based Medicine, Medical Advisory Service of Social Health Insurance (MDS), Theodor-Althoff-Straße 47, 45133 Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany. 5. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany; Brandenburg Medical School-Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Str.38, 16816 Neuruppin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test and evaluate a new decision-making process on the need for updating within the update of a German clinical practice guideline (CPG). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The pilot study comprised (1) limited searches in Pubmed to identify new potentially relevant evidence, (2) an online survey among the members of the CPG group to assess the need for update, and (3) a consensus conference for determination and prioritization of guideline sections with a high need for update. Subsequently, we conducted a second online survey to evaluate the procedure. RESULTS: The searches resulted in 902 abstracts that were graded as new potentially relevant evidence. Twenty five of 39 members of the CPG group (64%) participated in the online survey. Seventy six percent of those took part in the second online survey. The evaluation study found on average a grade of support of the procedure regarding the determination of the need for update of 3.65 (standard deviation: 0.76) on a likert scale with 1 = "no support" to 5 = "very strong support." CONCLUSION: The conducted procedure presents a systematic approach for assessing whether and to what extent a CPG requires updating and enables setting priorities for which particular guideline section to update within a CPG.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test and evaluate a new decision-making process on the need for updating within the update of a German clinical practice guideline (CPG). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The pilot study comprised (1) limited searches in Pubmed to identify new potentially relevant evidence, (2) an online survey among the members of the CPG group to assess the need for update, and (3) a consensus conference for determination and prioritization of guideline sections with a high need for update. Subsequently, we conducted a second online survey to evaluate the procedure. RESULTS: The searches resulted in 902 abstracts that were graded as new potentially relevant evidence. Twenty five of 39 members of the CPG group (64%) participated in the online survey. Seventy six percent of those took part in the second online survey. The evaluation study found on average a grade of support of the procedure regarding the determination of the need for update of 3.65 (standard deviation: 0.76) on a likert scale with 1 = "no support" to 5 = "very strong support." CONCLUSION: The conducted procedure presents a systematic approach for assessing whether and to what extent a CPG requires updating and enables setting priorities for which particular guideline section to update within a CPG.
Authors: Amena El-Harakeh; Rami Z Morsi; Racha Fadlallah; Lama Bou-Karroum; Tamara Lotfi; Elie A Akl Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 2.655
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