BACKGROUND: Major trauma describes serious injuries requiring lifesaving interventions or resulting in long-term disability; it represents about 8% of all deaths worldwide. Specific guidelines can help reduce deaths and disabilities, provided they adhere to high quality and trustworthiness standards. This article aims at introducing the development process of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, ISS (Italian National Institute of Health) guideline for major trauma integrated management. METHODS: We applied the ISS methodological standards including the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy guidelines. RESULTS: The scope was formulated by the multidisciplinary panel with stakeholders' involvement; two guidelines were identified as appropriate sources for adolopment. Forty questions from the two source guidelines were prioritised and five new ones formulated. New systematic reviews or updates were conducted for each clinical question, Evidence to Decision frameworks developed or re-assessed and the recommendations formulated after public consultations and external review. The policy on conflicts of interest was applied throughout the process. CONCLUSIONS: Through a broad expertise representation, the early and wide stakeholders' participation, a continual process for disclosure and management of conflict of interests and the transparency of the process, ISS standards are proving to be an efficient model for developing trustworthy clinical guidance.
BACKGROUND: Major trauma describes serious injuries requiring lifesaving interventions or resulting in long-term disability; it represents about 8% of all deaths worldwide. Specific guidelines can help reduce deaths and disabilities, provided they adhere to high quality and trustworthiness standards. This article aims at introducing the development process of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, ISS (Italian National Institute of Health) guideline for major trauma integrated management. METHODS: We applied the ISS methodological standards including the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy guidelines. RESULTS: The scope was formulated by the multidisciplinary panel with stakeholders' involvement; two guidelines were identified as appropriate sources for adolopment. Forty questions from the two source guidelines were prioritised and five new ones formulated. New systematic reviews or updates were conducted for each clinical question, Evidence to Decision frameworks developed or re-assessed and the recommendations formulated after public consultations and external review. The policy on conflicts of interest was applied throughout the process. CONCLUSIONS: Through a broad expertise representation, the early and wide stakeholders' participation, a continual process for disclosure and management of conflict of interests and the transparency of the process, ISS standards are proving to be an efficient model for developing trustworthy clinical guidance.