Xiaomei Yao1, Jun Xia2, Yinghui Jin3, Quan Shen4, Qi Wang5, Ying Zhu5, Sheila McNair6, Jonathan Sussman6, Zhiwen Wang7, Ivan D Florez8, Xian-Tao Zeng9, Melissa Brouwers10. 1. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Center for Clinical Practice Guideline Conduction and Evaluation, Children's Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 2. Nottingham Ningbo GRADE Centre, The University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China; School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 3. Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. 4. School of Health Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. 5. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. School of Nursing, Health Science Centre for Evidence-Based Nursing, Peking University School of Nursing, Beijing, China. 8. Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia; School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: ivan.florez@udea.edu.co. 9. Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Electronic address: zengxiantao1128@whu.edu.cn. 10. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To produce a mapping and feature summary of approaches and tools available for the clinical practice guideline (CPG) community to develop, report, or assess four types of CPGs: (1) Standard original (or de novo) CPGs, (2) Rapid original CPGs, (3) Adapted/adopted CPGs, and (4) Updated CPGs. STUDY DESIGN: The systematic literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to October 13, 2020. Two websites that collect and recommend approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess CPGs were also searched: Guidelines International Network and Equator Network. We screened the search results to include methodological papers that aimed to develop specific approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess any of the aforementioned four CPG types. RESULTS: Among 10,581 citations, 46 papers reporting 46 approaches/tools were included. Of these 46 approaches/tools, 33 were about CPG development, seven were for CPG reporting, and six for CPG assessment. Among the 33 development approaches/tools, 26 did not state usability or validity information; but nine from 13 reporting or assessment approaches/tools did. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overall summary of the currently available approaches/tools, which serves to improve users' understanding to pave the way for informed choice and application.
OBJECTIVE: To produce a mapping and feature summary of approaches and tools available for the clinical practice guideline (CPG) community to develop, report, or assess four types of CPGs: (1) Standard original (or de novo) CPGs, (2) Rapid original CPGs, (3) Adapted/adopted CPGs, and (4) Updated CPGs. STUDY DESIGN: The systematic literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to October 13, 2020. Two websites that collect and recommend approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess CPGs were also searched: Guidelines International Network and Equator Network. We screened the search results to include methodological papers that aimed to develop specific approaches/tools to develop, report, or assess any of the aforementioned four CPG types. RESULTS: Among 10,581 citations, 46 papers reporting 46 approaches/tools were included. Of these 46 approaches/tools, 33 were about CPG development, seven were for CPG reporting, and six for CPG assessment. Among the 33 development approaches/tools, 26 did not state usability or validity information; but nine from 13 reporting or assessment approaches/tools did. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overall summary of the currently available approaches/tools, which serves to improve users' understanding to pave the way for informed choice and application.