Search

Objective: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included., Study Design and Setting: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved., Results: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination., Conclusion: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Conflicts of interest (COIs) have been defined by the American Thoracic Society as "a divergence between an individual's private interests and his or her professional obligations such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are motivated by personal gain, such as direct financial, academic advancement, clinical revenue streams, or community standing." In the context of guideline development, the concerns are not simply about identifying and disclosing direct financial or indirect COIs. Despite this recognition, the management of COIs in guidelines is often unsatisfactory. In response to requests from its international membership and informed by existing syntheses of the evidence and policies of international organizations, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees developed guidance on the disclosure of interests and management of COIs. Current approaches are relatively similar throughout the guideline development community, with an increasing recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing indirect COIs. Although there are differences in detail among the approaches, the similarities allow for the formulation of 9 core principles for managing COIs. In formulating these principles, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees recognizes that COIs cannot be totally avoided when panel members are being chosen for certain guidelines or in certain settings; thus, the important issue is the management of COIs in a fair, judicious, transparent manner.

Background: Guidelines of high methodological quality make an essential contribution to the quality assurance of medical knowledge. The detailed evaluation of guideline quality is a complex and time-consuming task. The answers to a few key questions generally suffice for an initial, rapid assessment of the quality and utility of a guideline., Method: We selectively searched the pertinent literature for guideline-assessing instruments and analyzed selected ones with respect to their target group, purpose, orientation, and comprehensiveness. We identified key questions from brief instruments that can be used to assess guideline quality rapidly., Results: A comparison of ten instruments revealed that most were designed to provide a highly detailed assessment of guideline quality. Four recently developed instruments enable a rough and rapid assessment. They focus, in essence, on four key questions: Was the evidence analyzed systematically? Does the evidence support the recommendations? Is the goal of the guideline formulated, and are the authors named? Is the organization of the guideline easy to follow, and are the recommendations clearly signposted?, Conclusion: Alongside the comprehensive instruments for assessing guidelines, such as DELBI and AGREE II, rapid-assessment instruments are a convenient tool for gaining a quick impression of the value of a guideline.

The Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) is the umbrella organization of medical scientific societies in Germany. The development of guidelines goes back to an initiative of the medical scientific societies and is coordinated by the AWMF. Rules for the inclusion of guidelines in the AWMF Guideline Register have been defined including how guidelines are classified. S1 guidelines are based only on recommendations by experts, whereas S2 guidelines require a structured consensus process or a systematic literature review. S3 guidelines include both elements. In addition to compulsory disclosure of any potential conflict of interest, transparent handling of potential conflicts of interest is an important confidence-building measure. For years, the trend has been to develop higher order (S2/S3) guidelines, and the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) has been no exception to the trend. In addition to its responsibility for specific S2 and S3 guidelines, the DGGG is also involved in numerous other interdisciplinary guidelines. When developing a guideline, it is essential to define the guideline's scope, identify aspects which require improvement and agree on the goals. Target groups affected by the guidelines should be involved if they are interested. Different formats (long and short versions, practical instructions, conventional or electronic decision aids, patient versions) are useful to disseminate the guideline. The guideline can be adapted to local circumstances to encourage implementation of its recommendations. Implementation can be measured using quality indicators. Feedback from practitioners is important as this highlights areas which require improvement. The medical scientific societies in Germany can look back on almost two decades of work spent on developing guidelines, most of it done by unpaid voluntary contributors, making this a very successful quality initiative.

Background: The estimated prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is 8 for every 1000 live births. FAS has serious, lifelong consequences for the affected children and their families. A variety of professionals deal with persons who have FAS, including pediatricians, general practitioners, neurologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists. Early diagnosis is important so that the affected children can receive the support they need in a protective environment., Methods: A multidisciplinary guideline group has issued recommendations for the diagnosis of FAS after assessment of the available scientific evidence. This information was derived from pertinent literature (2001-2011) retrieved by a systematic search in PubMed and the Cochrane Library, along with the US-American and Canadian guidelines and additional literature retrieved by a manual search., Results: Of the 1383 publications retrieved by the searches, 178 were analyzed for the evidence they contained. It was concluded that the fully-developed clinical syndrome of FAS should be diagnosed on the basis of the following criteria: Patients must have at least one growth abnormality, e.g., short stature, as well as all three characteristic facial abnormalities-short palpebral fissure length, a thin upper lip, and a smooth philtrum. They must also have at least one diagnosed structural or functional abnormality of the central nervous system, e.g., microcephaly or impaired executive function. Confirmation of intrauterine exposure to alcohol is not obligatory for the diagnosis., Conclusion: Practical, evidence-based criteria have now been established for the diagnosis of the fully-developed FAS syndrome. More research is needed in order to enable uniform, evidence-based diagnostic assessment of all fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and optimize supportive measures for the children affected by them.

Background: Extracranial atherosclerotic lesions of the carotid bifurcation cause 10% to 20% of all cases of cerebral ischemia. Until now, there have been no comprehensive evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the management of patients with extracranial carotid stenosis in Germany and Austria., Methods: The literature was systematically searched for pertinent publications (1990-2011). On the basis of 182 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 308 systematic reviews, 30 key questions were answered and evidence-based recommendations were issued., Results: The prevalence of extracranial carotid stenosis is more than 5% from age 65 onward. Men are affected twice as frequently as women. The most important diagnostic technique is Doppler- and color-coded duplex ultrasonography. RCTs have shown that the treatment of high-grade asymptomatic carotid stenosis with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can lower the 5-year risk of stroke from 11% to 5%. Intensive conservative treatment may lower the stroke risk still further. Moreover, RCTs have shown that CEA for symptomatic 50% to 99% carotid stenosis lowers the 5-year stroke risk by 5% to 16%. Meta-analyses of the 13 available RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with CEA have shown that CAS is associated with a 2% to 2.5% higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death and with a 0.5% to 1% lower risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. If no particular surgical risk factors are present, CEA is the standard treatment for high-grade carotid stenosis. CAS may be considered as an alternative to CEA if the rate of procedure-related stroke or death can be kept below 3% or 6% for asymptomatic and symptomatic stenosis, respectively., Conclusion: Further studies are needed so that better selection criteria can be developed for individually tailored treatment.

Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and often chronic inflammatory skin disease. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1 to 2%. Patients afflicted with severe psoriasis vulgaris may experience a significant reduction in quality of life. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, patient surveys have revealed lack of satisfaction with the efficacy of available treatments and a high rate of non-compliance. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft (DDG) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis. These resulting Guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate, and severe plaquetype psoriasis in adults. The Guidelines include evidence-based evaluation of the efficacy of all currently available therapeutic options in Germany. In addition, they offer detailed information on how best to administer the various treatments and give information on contraindications, adverse drug reactions, and drug interactions as well as estimates of practicability and cost. The Guidelines were developed following the recommendations of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlicher medizinischer Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). The therapeutic recommendations were developed by an expert group and finalized during interdisciplinary consensus conferences.