Search

Description: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to summarize the available evidence and offer expert Best Practice Advice on the integration of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) in the clinical management of foregut disorders, specifically including gastroesophageal reflux disease, Helicobacter pylori infection, and peptic ulcer disease., Methods: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Governing Board and CPU Committee to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. This CPU expert review underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through the standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were developed based on review of the published literature and expert consensus opinion. Because formal systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Based on nonclinical factors (including cost, greater obstacles to obtaining medication, and fewer long-term safety data), clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as initial therapy for acid-related conditions in which clinical superiority has not been shown. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Based on current costs in the United States, even modest clinical superiority of P-CABs over double-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may not make P-CABs cost-effective as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line on-demand therapy for patients with heartburn symptoms who have previously responded to antisecretory therapy, their rapid onset of acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with milder erosive esophagitis (EE) (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade A/B EE). Clinicians may use P-CABs in selected patients with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians may use P-CABs as a therapeutic option for the healing and maintenance of healing in patients with more severe EE (Los Angeles classification of erosive esophagitis grade C/D EE). However, given the markedly higher costs of the P-CAB presently available in the United States and the lack of randomized comparisons with double-dose PPIs, it is not clear that the benefits in endoscopic outcomes over standard-dose PPIs justify the routine use of P-CABs as first-line therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should use P-CABs in place of PPIs in eradication regimens for most patients with H pylori infection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should generally not use P-CABs as first-line therapy in the treatment or prophylaxis of peptic ulcer disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Although there is currently insufficient evidence for clinicians to use P-CABs as first-line therapy in patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata, their rapid and potent acid inhibition raises the possibility of their utility in this population., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: The diagnosis and management of biliary dyskinesia in children and adolescents remains variable and controversial. The American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice Committee (APSA OEBP) performed a systematic review of the literature to develop evidence-based recommendations., Methods: Through an iterative process, the membership of the APSA OEBP developed five a priori questions focused on diagnostic criteria, indications for cholecystectomy, short and long-term outcomes, predictors of success/benefit, and outcomes of medical management. A systematic review was conducted, and articles were selected for review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using Methodologic Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. The Oxford Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation were utilized., Results: The diagnostic criteria for biliary dyskinesia in children and adolescents are not clearly defined. Cholecystectomy may provide long-term partial or complete relief in some patients; however, there are no reliable predictors of symptom relief. Some patients may experience resolution of symptoms with non-operative management., Conclusions: Pediatric biliary dyskinesia remains an ill-defined clinical entity. Pediatric-specific guidelines are necessary to better characterize the condition, guide work-up, and provide management recommendations. Prospective studies are necessary to more reliably identify patients who may benefit from cholecystectomy., Level of Evidence: Level 3-4., Type of Study: Systematic Review of Level 3-4 Studies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recommendations for breast surveillance following breast plastic surgery are frequently changing. Establishing guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols may help identify treatable conditions and prevent untoward sequelae. We sought to evaluate the current state of evidence-based long-term monitoring protocols for patients following breast augmentation, reduction, and breast reconstruction., Methods: Official guidelines from various American societies and international societies were analyzed for alignment in evidence-based recommendations regarding breast surveillance., Results: The most recent US FDA update recommends magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound starting 5-6 years after surgery and every 2-3 years thereafter. Discrepancies exist among professional societies: the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) aligns with the FDA, while the American Society of Breast Surgeons and American College of Radiology (ACR) find no role for imaging for asymptomatic cases. Ultrasound is first-line for any implant concerns, with MRI if necessary. European societies oppose routine breast implant imaging. Breast reduction patients lack unique screening protocols; monitoring aligns with age and cancer risk factors. Following mastectomy and breast reconstruction, most organizations advocate for annual clinical examinations, with more frequent examinations initially. Evidence suggests that physical examination is sufficient to detect local cancer recurrence, with imaging only indicated if there is concern for recurrence. No surveillance imaging is recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or ASPS; however, ACR recommends mammography for autologous reconstruction only., Conclusion: Multispecialty and regulatory body alignment may promote provider and patient adherence. Ongoing studies of long-term outcomes are needed to strengthen the level of evidence for monitoring guidelines., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Clinical practice recommendations guide healthcare decisions. This study aims to evaluate the strength and quality of evidence supporting the American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA) guidelines for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)., Methods: We reviewed the current AHA/ASA guidelines for aSAH and spontaneous ICH and compared with previous guidelines. Guidelines were classified based on the Class of recommendation (COR) and Level of evidence (LOE). COR signifies recommendation strength (COR 1: Strong; COR 2a: Moderate; COR 2b: Weak; COR 3: No Benefit/Harm), while LOE denotes evidence quality (LOE A: High-Quality; LOE B-NR: Moderate-Quality, Not Randomized; LOE B-R: Moderate-Quality, Randomized; LOE C-EO: Expert Opinion; LOE C-LD: Limited Data)., Results: For aSAH, we identified 84 recommendations across 15 guideline categories. Of these, 31% were classified as COR I, 30% as COR 2a, 17% as COR 2b, and 18% as COR 3. In terms of LOE, 7% were based on LOE A, 10% on LOE B-R, 65% on LOE B-NR, 14% on LOE C-LD, and 5% on LOE C-EO. Compared to previous guidelines, there was a 46% decrease in LOE A, a 45% increase in LOE B, and an 11% decrease in LOE C. For spontaneous ICH, 124 guidelines were identified across 31 guideline categories. Of these, 28% were COR I, 32% COR 2b, and 9% COR 3. For LOE, 4% were based on LOE A, 35% on LOE B-NR, and 42% on LOE C-LD. Compared to previous guidelines, there was a 78% decrease in LOE A, an 82% increase in LOE B, and a 14% increase in LOE C. This analysis highlights that less than a third of AHA/ASA guidelines are classified as the highest class of recommendation, with less than 10% based on the highest LOE., Conclusion: Less than a third of AHA/ASA guidelines on aSAH and spontaneous ICH are classified as the highest class of recommendation with less than 10% based on highest LOE. There appears to be a decrease in proportion of guidelines based on highest LOE in most recent guidelines., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Systematic review with meta-analysis integrates findings from multiple studies, offering robust conclusions on treatment effects and guiding evidence-based medicine. However, the process is often hampered by challenges such as inconsistent data reporting, complex calculations, and time constraints. Researchers must convert various statistical measures into a common format, which can be error-prone and labor-intensive without the right tools., Implementation: Meta-Analysis Accelerator was developed to address these challenges. The tool offers 21 different statistical conversions, including median & interquartile range (IQR) to mean & standard deviation (SD), standard error of the mean (SEM) to SD, and confidence interval (CI) to SD for one and two groups, among others. It is designed with an intuitive interface, ensuring that users can navigate the tool easily and perform conversions accurately and efficiently. The website structure includes a home page, conversion page, request a conversion feature, about page, articles page, and privacy policy page. This comprehensive design supports the tool's primary goal of simplifying the meta-analysis process., Results: Since its initial release in October 2023 as Meta Converter and subsequent renaming to Meta-Analysis Accelerator, the tool has gained widespread use globally. From March 2024 to May 2024, it received 12,236 visits from countries such as Egypt, France, Indonesia, and the USA, indicating its international appeal and utility. Approximately 46% of the visits were direct, reflecting its popularity and trust among users., Conclusions: Meta-Analysis Accelerator significantly enhances the efficiency and accuracy of meta-analysis of systematic reviews by providing a reliable platform for statistical data conversion. Its comprehensive variety of conversions, user-friendly interface, and continuous improvements make it an indispensable resource for researchers. The tool's ability to streamline data transformation ensures that researchers can focus more on data interpretation and less on manual calculations, thus advancing the quality and ease of conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The process of grading and stratifying evidence in the extensive literature on neurosurgical guidelines has evolved significantly, ranging from high-quality standards to suggested options. However, the methodology for guideline development has become increasingly complex, leading to challenges in their application across various neurosurgical specialties and settings. This mini review aims to explore the practical implications of published suggestions for managing neurosurgical patients., Methods: A critical and focused collection of published literature concerning guidelines in different neurosurgical topics, from Pubmed and other sources formed the basis of this non-systematic narrative review. Only guidelines produced by neurosurgeons in the era of evidence based medicine (after 1996) were included., Results: Neurosurgical guidelines often rely on a limited number of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Class I evidence, particularly in surgical and emergency contexts where randomization of patient treatments may conflict with established clinical practices. Challenges also include the timely update of guidelines, which sometimes lags behind rapid shifts in evidence, and varying methodologies in guideline production that can result in divergent recommendations. Geographical disparities in disease burden and literature production further influence guideline applicability, suggesting a need for greater inclusion of authors from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) to enhance realism and global relevance. Consensus conferences and expert reviews may serve as viable alternatives to address these challenges., Conclusion: While Evidence-Based Medicine remains pivotal, critical appraisal and practical application of guidelines must consider these complexities to optimize patient care and outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Network meta-analysis is developed to compare all available treatments; therefore it enriches evidence for clinical decision-making, offering insights into treatment effectiveness and safety when faced with multiple options. However, the complexity and numerous treatment comparisons in network meta-analysis can challenge healthcare providers and patients. The purpose of this study aimed to introduce a graphic design to present complex rankings of multiple interventions comprehensively., Methods: Our team members developed a "beading plot" to summary probability of achieving the best treatment (P-best) and global metrics including surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and P-score. Implemented via the "rankinma" R package, this tool summarizes rankings across diverse outcomes in network meta-analyses, and the package received an official release on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). It includes the `PlotBead()` function for generating beading plots, which represent treatment rankings among various outcomes., Results: Beading plot has been designed based on number line plot, which effectively displays collective metrics for each treatment across various outcomes. Order on the -axis is derived from ranking metrics like P-best, SUCRA, and P-score. Continuous lines represent outcomes, and color-coded beads signify treatments., Conclusion: The beading plot is a valuable graphic that intuitively displays treatment rankings across diverse outcomes, enhancing reader-friendliness and aiding decision-making in complex network evidence scenarios. While empowering clinicians and patients to identify optimal treatments, it should be used cautiously, alongside an assessment of the overall evidence certainty., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Die Übersicht über die Interessenkonflikte der Autorinnen und Autoren ist im Leitlinienreport veröffentlicht.

Competing Interests: Die Übersicht über die Interessenkonflikte der Autorinnen und Autoren ist im Anhang veröffentlicht.

Competing Interests: Die Übersicht über die Interessenkonflikte der Autorinnen und Autoren ist im Leitlinienreport veröffentlicht.

Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) plays a key role in regulatory and healthcare decision-making, but the potentially fragmentated nature of generated evidence may limit its utility for clinical decision-making. Heterogeneity and a lack of reproducibility in RWE resulting from inconsistent application of methodologies across data sources should be minimized through harmonization., Methods: This paper's aim is to describe and reflect upon a multidisciplinary research platform (FOUNTAIN; FinerenOne mUlti-database NeTwork for evidence generAtIoN) with coordinated studies using diverse RWE generation approaches and explore the platform's strengths and limitations. With guidance from an executive advisory committee of multidisciplinary experts and patient representatives, the goal of the FOUNTAIN platform is to harmonize RWE generation across a portfolio of research projects, including research partner collaborations and a common data model (CDM)-based program. FOUNTAIN's overarching objectives as a research platform are to establish long-term collaborations among pharmacoepidemiology research partners and experts and to integrate diverse approaches for RWE generation, including global protocol execution by research partners in local data sources and common protocol execution in multiple data sources through federated data networks, while ensuring harmonization of medical definitions, methodology, and reproducible artifacts across all studies. Specifically, the aim of the multiple studies run within the frame of FOUNTAIN is to provide insight into the real-world utilization, effectiveness, and safety of finerenone across its life-cycle., Results: Currently, the FOUNTAIN platform includes 9 research partner collaborations and 8 CDM-mapped data sources from 7 countries (United States, United Kingdom, China, Japan, The Netherlands, Spain, and Denmark). These databases and research partners were selected after a feasibility fit-for-purpose evaluation. Six multicountry, multidatabase, cohort studies are ongoing to describe patient populations, current standard of care, comorbidity profiles, healthcare resource use, and treatment effectiveness and safety in different patient populations with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. Strengths and potential limitations of FOUNTAIN are described in the context of valid RWE generation., Conclusion: The establishment of the FOUNTAIN platform has allowed harmonized execution of multiple studies, promoting consistency both within individual studies that employ multiple data sources and across all studies run within the platform's framework. FOUNTAIN presents a proposal to efficiently improve the consistency and generalizability of RWE on finerenone., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Objectives: This study aimed to systematically assess the methodological quality and key recommendations of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of liver failure (LF), furnishing constructive insights for guideline developers and equipping clinicians with evidence-based information to facilitate informed decision-making., Data Sources: Electronic databases and manual searches from January 2011 to August 2023., Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts for eligibility. Fourteen guidelines were included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted data and checked by two others. Methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Of the 14 guidelines, only the guidelines established by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Gastroenterology (2023) achieved an aggregate quality score exceeding 60%, thereby meriting clinical recommendations. It emerged that there remains ample room for enhancement in the quality of the guidelines, particularly within the domains of stakeholder engagement, rigor, and applicability. Furthermore, an in-depth scrutiny of common recommendations and supporting evidence drawn from the 10 adult LF guidelines unveiled several key issues: controversy exists in the recommendation, the absence of supporting evidence and confusing use of evidence for recommendations, and a preference in evidence selection., Conclusions: There are high differences in methodological quality and recommendations among LF guidelines. Improving these existing problems and controversies will benefit existing clinical practice and will be an effective way for developers to upgrade the guidelines., Competing Interests: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 82160106) to Dr. Yang and Yunnan’s Young Academic and Technical Leaders Reserve Talent Project (no. 202105AC160049) to Dr. Sun. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: The effectiveness of audiological monitoring for detecting early hearing changes in patients receiving ototoxic medication could be limited by the lack of adequate audiological ototoxicity monitoring (OtoM) guidelines. This study aimed to evaluate existing OtoM guidelines using the AGREE II tool for guideline evaluation., Design: Guideline Review., Study Sample: Three audiological OtoM guidelines., Results: An online search identified three audiological OtoM guidelines published by the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association (ASHA), the American Academy of Audiology (AAA) and the Health Professionals Council of South Africa (HPCSA). Evaluation using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool found the HPCSA audiological OtoM guideline scored higher than the ASHA and AAA guidelines in five of the six tool domains. All guidelines received average domain ratings of less than 50% with each reviewer recommending all three guidelines for use following modification., Conclusion: The findings of this study could partly explain the poor uptake of audiological OtoM practices internationally, further investigation is needed to identify the specific factors limiting the implementation of audiological OtoM in clinical practice.

Background and Objective: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT., Methods: Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval., Results: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others., Conclusion: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors are members or contributors to the GRADE working group. Zachary Munn is supported by an NHMRC investigator grant APP 1195676. Alexander G. Mathioudakis was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Manchester BRC, NIHR203308) and by an NIHR Clinical Lectureship in Respiratory Medicine. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The clinical picture of "frozen shoulder" is still poorly understood. In order to present the current state of knowledge on aetiology, diagnosis, and treatment, and to provide recommendations for the professional groups involved, a working group was formed by the DGOU and the DVSE to create a German language, evidence-based guideline, which was published in 2022 by the AWMF. The following summarises the development and the most important results., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

An assessment of the validity of studies is an essential component of most evidence syntheses (systematic reviews) to understand the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of the evidence. A formal validity assessment requires a structured and comprehensive approach, which can be implemented using an assessment tool, specifically developed for this purpose. Many different tools are available, marking it difficult for researchers to choose the best tool for their evidence synthesis. We have established the LATITUDES Network to assist researchers in identifying the most appropriate tool to use in their evidence synthesis and to support researchers using these tools. The LATITUDES website (www.latitudes-network.org) includes a searchable library of validity assessment tools designed for use in evidence syntheses, bringing tools together in one place and providing researchers with clear information on suitable tools, categorized by study design. The website also provides links to training on the process of validity assessment and a list of tools currently under development. To be included in the LATITUDES library, tools must meet the following criteria: be designed for use in evidence syntheses; assess multidimensional aspects of validity of individual studies or reviews; and be developed for use by the wider research community rather than for a single research group. We highlight 'key' tools, those that are considered to be the most robust and reliable tools based on prespecified criteria agreed in conjunction with our advisory board, an international group of experts in the area of evidence synthesis and ROB tools., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors are members of the LATITUDES Network leadership group. None of the authors have any additional competing interests to clear., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) are evidence-based criteria developed in a methodologically robust manner with the input of expert providers across a wide range of disciplines and practice settings. AUC have been successfully implemented in the diagnosis and management of a wide range of cardiovascular disease processes. AUC have demonstrated clear potential for influencing meaningful change in practice patterns with regards to high-value, high-quality care in cardiovascular pathologies. Potential for similar impact in the management of peripheral artery disease, specifically for patients presenting with intermittent claudication (IC), may be limited due to unique challenges. These challenges include multidisciplinary interventionalists, variability in existing AUC across specialties, and financial incentives influencing physician behavior. AUC serve to benefit patients by improving outcomes, and adoption of AUC is a critical step toward improving the quality of care provided to patients with IC. Societal support is necessary for effective AUC implementation., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence synthesis organisations are trying to meet commissioners' needs for rapid responses to their evidence synthesis commissions. In this project we piloted an intensive process, working to complete evidence syntheses within six-weeks, rather than the standard lead time of 4-6 months. Our objective was to explore how researchers experience working intensively, identify barriers and facilitators, and determine how a more intensive approach to evidence synthesis could be more systematically introduced in the future., Methods: In a pre-planning phase, an intensive work group was established, and two commissions were selected for this pilot project. The evidence synthesis process was divided into two phases: planning and intensive. The planning phase, involved scheduling the intensive phase, exploring new digital tools, and identifying peer reviewers. The intensive phase encompassed the entire evidence synthesis process. Two review teams were formed, each with a team lead supported by a process lead and leadership contact point. Throughout the project, teams engaged in reflective meetings to evaluate and adjust processes as needed., Results: During the planning phase, teams identified significant uncertainties regarding scopes, research questions, and inclusion criteria. To address this, they engaged with commissioners earlier than originally planned, clarified these aspects, and prepared protocols. Despite some minor deviations from the original plan, both reviews were completed on schedule, with one team expanding their scope due to the absence of eligible studies. Teams operated flexibly, held regular meetings, and found the process seamless due to fewer interruptions. Machine learning tools facilitated rapid study selection. The process lead role, created to guide and evaluate the project, proved beneficial, providing structure and support, although clearer role delineation with the leadership contact point could have improved efficiency., Conclusions: Overall, the intensive process fostered focus and productivity, allowing teams to manage short-term deliverables effectively. The researchers preferred working intensively with one evidence synthesis over being involved with many projects at the same time. They felt that time use was more effective, and they were able to complete the tasks in a focused way. However, there are several implications that should be considered before implementing an intensive approach in future evidence syntheses., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform healthcare decisions and improve patient care. However, an evaluation of guidelines on gastrointestinal diseases (GIDs) is lacking. This study aimed to systematically analyze the level of evidence (LOE) supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs., Methods: CPGs for GIDs were identified by systematically searching major databases. Data on LOEs and classes of recommendations (CORs) were extracted. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, LOEs were categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, whereas CORs were classified as strong or weak. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of LOEs and CORs across different subtopics and assess changes in evidence quality over time., Findings: Only 27.9% of these recommendations were supported by a high LOE, whereas approximately 70% were strong recommendations. There was a significant disparity among different subtopics in the proportion of strong recommendations supported by a high LOE. The number of guidelines has increased in the past 5 years, but there has been a concomitant decline in the proportion of recommendations supported by a high LOE., Conclusions: There is a general lack of high-quality evidence supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs, and there are inconsistencies in strong recommendations that have not improved. This study identified areas requiring further research, emphasizing the need to bridge these gaps and promote the conduct of high-quality clinical trials., Funding: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2503604 and 2022YFC2503605) and Special Topics in Military Health Care (22BJZ25)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Guidelines help to facilitate treatment decisions based on available evidence, and also to provide recommendations in areas of uncertainty. In this paper, we compare the recommendations for stroke workup and secondary prevention of ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA) with the European Stroke Organization (ESO) guidelines. The primary aim of this paper is to offer clinicians guidance by identifying areas where there is consensus and where consensus is lacking, in the absence or presence of high-level evidence. We compared AHA/ASA with the ESO guideline recommendations for 7 different topics related to diagnostic stroke workup and secondary prevention. We categorized the recommendations based on class and level of evidence to determine whether there were relevant differences in the ratings of evidence that the guidelines used for its recommendations. Finally, we summarized major topics of agreement and disagreement, while also prominent knowledge gaps were identified. In total, we found 63 ESO and 82 AHA/ASA recommendations, of which 38 were on the same subject. Most recommendations are largely similar, but not all are based on high-level evidence. For many recommendations, AHA/ASA and ESO assigned different levels of evidence. For the 10 recommendations with Level A evidence (high quality) in AHA/ASA, ESO only labeled 4 of these as high quality . There are many remaining issues with either no or insufficient evidence, and some topics that are not covered by both guidelines. Most ESO and AHA/ASA Guideline recommendations for stroke workup and secondary prevention were similar. However not all were based on high-level evidence and the appointed level of evidence often differed. Clinicians should not blindly follow all guideline recommendations; the accompanying level of evidence informs which recommendations are based on robust evidence. Topics with lower levels of evidence, or those with recommendations that disagree or are missing, may be an incentive for further clinical research., Competing Interests: Dr Dippel reports grants from Stryker, Medtronic, Penumbra, Cerenovus, and Thrombolytic Science, paid to the institution for research outside the submitted work.

Competing Interests: C.A. Rajkumar reports consultant fees from Philips and speaker’s honoraria from Menarini. R.K. Al-Lamee reports advisory board: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, Philips, and speaker’s honoraria: Abbott, Philips, Medtronic, Servier, Omniprex, and Menarini.

Competing Interests: Dr Boden receives research grant support from the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He has received research funding from AbbVie, Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Aventis. In addition, he has received speaking honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Servier. Dr De Caterina reports honoraria and research funding from Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Merck, Portola, Roche, AstraZeneca, Menarini, Guidotti, Milestone, Amarin, Noventure, Sanofi, and Amgen.

There has been recent discussion in Australia and New Zealand concerning the utility of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and the role of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) in their development. The College Board therefore established a Steering Group (SG) to oversee an exploration of options and produce recommendations about contemporary approaches to the development of high-quality evidence-based clinical practice guidance for psychiatry. This paper outlines the SG's conclusions and recommendations, as well as the underlying methods and reasoning. In particular, we discuss best practice and recent developments in the synthesis of research evidence. Account has been taken of the opportunities offered by digital technologies, the proliferation of clinical evidence and awareness of the gains to be made by increased inclusion of lived-experience perspectives. It is recommended that the broader concept of best practice resources (BPRs) as now emphasised in so many fields of service is the most appropriate starting point for the College's role in this area especially as the expertise of the College and its fellows lends itself to the development of a range of BPRs. In conclusion, contemporary guidance needs to be tailored to the requirements of the practitioners seeking it, to articulate the real-world needs and experiences of patients, and to be delivered in a contemporary format that is responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. The experience in Australia and New Zealand may have implications elsewhere for the development of CPGs and BPRs more broadly., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: All the authors were members of the Future Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines Steering Group, or assisting College staff.

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians and authors of clinical guidelines or patient information with practical guidance on searching and choosing systematic reviews(s) (SR[s]) and, where adequate, on making use of SR(s)., Study Design and Setting: At the German conference of the Evidence-Based Medicine Network (EbM Network) a workshop on the topic was held to identify the most important areas where guidance for practice appears necessary. After the workshop, we established working groups. These included SR users with different backgrounds (eg, information specialists, epidemiologists) and working areas. Each working group developed and consented a draft guidance based on their expert knowledge and experiences. The results were presented to the entire group and finalized in an iterative process., Results: We developed a practical guidance that answers questions that usually arise when choosing and using SR(s). (1) How to efficiently find high-quality SRs? (2) How to choose the most appropriate SR? (3) What to do if no SR of sufficient quality could be identified? In addition, we developed an algorithm that links these steps and accounts for their interaction. The resulting guidance is primarily directed at clinicians and developers of clinical practice guidelines or patient information resources., Conclusion: We suggest practical guidance for making the best use of SRs when answering a specific research question. The guidance may contribute to the efficient use of existing SRs. Potential benefits when using existing SRs should be always weighted against potential limitations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no competing interests for any author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Evidence-based medicine drives patient care decision-making; thus, accurate and complete reporting in scientific publications is paramount. A checklist for complete reporting of veterinary radiation therapy was proposed in 2012 using the recommendations of the International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). The purpose of this study is to review the 2012 checklist and propose updates based on changes in technology. Significant technology advancements have gained traction in veterinary medicine, including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT), both of which have related modality-specific ICRU reporting recommendations. The 2012 checklist and proposed 2024 checklist are then used to assess the completeness of reporting in veterinary radiation oncology publications between 2015 and 2022, of which one hundred and eight publications met the inclusion criteria. Prior to the publication of the 2012 checklist (2005-2010), only nine checklist items showed a good level of completeness in reporting, and from 2015 to 2022, this increased to 16 items. Encouraging and/or requiring the use of reporting checklists at the time of manuscript submission may be responsible for this improvement in reporting. Using the 2024 checklist, which is more relevant to publications discussing IMRT and SRT treatments, only 14 of the analyzed checklist items (34%) show a good level of completeness in reporting, suggesting there is a need for updated guidelines to capture the nuances of advanced techniques. This study proposes a 2024 checklist that can be used as a guideline for future reporting of radiation therapy in veterinary medicine., (© 2024 The Author(s). Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Radiology.)

Objectives: To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries - here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) - and (b) NMA results in general., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions., Results: The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with 3 (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and 6 (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%)., Conclusion: Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms; those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest T.A. reports a relationship with MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation that includes: board membership and employment. P.O.V. reports a relationship with MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation that includes: board membership and employment. P.O.V. and T.A. are CEO and deputy CEO of the nonprofit organization MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (https://www.magicevidence.org). In collaboration with P.O.L. at Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, MAGIC is conducting the research project Making Alternative Treatment Choices Intuitive and Trustworthy (MATCH-IT). The overarching aim of MATCH-IT is to develop a new interactive SoF table and decision support tool, displaying multiple structured evidence summaries from NMAs. The tool may be integrated as part of MAGICapp (https://app.magicapp.org/#/guidelines), an online author and publication platform for guidelines, evidence summaries and decision aids. A.A.V. is Statistical Associate Editor for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. A.C.T. is Coeditor-in-Chief for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. X.W., T.P., M.Ø., and C.L. declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Vascular access is the most common invasive procedure performed in health care. This fundamental procedure must be performed in a safe and effective manner. Vascular access devices (VADs) are often the source of infections and other complications, yet there is a lack of clear guidance on VADs for health providers across different settings. A Best Practice Guideline (BPG) was developed by the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) to provide evidence-based recommendations on the assessment and management of VADs., Methods: RNAO BPGs are based on systematic reviews of the literature following the GRADE approach. Experts on the topic of vascular access were selected to form a panel. Systematic reviews were conducted on six research areas: education, vascular access specialists, blood draws, daily review of peripheral VADs, visualization technologies, and pain management. A search for relevant research studies published in English limited to January 2013 was applied to eight databases. All studies were independently assessed for eligibility and risk of bias by two reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The GRADE approach was used to determine certainty of the evidence., Results: Over 65,000 articles were screened related to the six priority research questions. Of these, 876 full-text publications were examined for relevance, with 174 articles designated to inform nine recommendations in the BPG on the subject areas of: comprehensive health teaching, practical education for health providers, blood draws, daily review of peripheral VADs, visualization technologies, and pain management. In June 2021, the RNAO published the BPG on vascular access, which included the recommendations and other supporting resources., Conclusion: The vascular access BPG provides high quality guidance and updated recommendations, and can serve as a primary resource for health providers assessing and managing VADs., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes published a 2022 consensus report recommending changes in diabetes care. This Perspective raises three concerns: with how the report summarizes evidence, how it frames the social determinants of health (SDOH), and with its transnational composition and conflicts of interest. The Perspective analyzes three new clinical recommendations that change the role of metformin from first-line therapy to a first-line option, for the inclusion of weight management as a co-primary treatment goal with glycemic control for patients without cardiac or renal complications, and for addition of the SDOH as a universal component of diabetes care together with lifestyle changes and self-management support. The Perspective considers how the poor evidence assessments of the recommendations and the imprecise framing of the SDOH introduce bias. The composition of the panel's membership poorly represents and accounts for the challenges faced by vulnerable US communities or safety net providers. The report is placed in a historical context for diabetes of organized medicine's failures to overcome prejudices and promote health equity. The Perspective concludes that the report perpetuates a pattern of prejudice within organized medicine at the expense of scientific precision and health equity., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests There are no competing interests to disclose.

Introduction: National and international scientific societies advocate for a regular, systematic, and standardized global evaluation of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients. However, there are no recommendations specifying the content of this global evaluation. This initiative aimed to propose a standardized reporting framework, using evidence-based and consensus approaches, to collect data on all domains of axSpA., Methods: A literature review and consensus process involved a steering committee and an expert panel of 37 rheumatologists and health professionals. The first steering committee took place in March 2022 and identified the main domains for inclusion in the standardized report. A hierarchical literature review was conducted to identify items within these domains and tools for assessment. The items and tools for assessment were discussed and consensus was reached through a vote session during an expert meeting that took place in March 2023., Results: The steering committee identified four main domains to include in the standardized reporting framework: disease assessment, comorbidities, lifestyle, and quality of life. Items and tools for assessment were adopted after the expert meeting. Additionally, recommendations regarding digital tools (websites, apps, social media) were provided., Conclusion: This initiative led to a consensus, based on evidence and expertise, on a reporting framework for use during periodic systematic global evaluations of axSpa in daily practice., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests The authors declare the following conflicts of interest (past 36 months): F.N.A.: member of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) Council and Vice-Chair of the ISTH Guideline and Guidance Committee; research funding (investigator-initiated studies, paid to university) from Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi; and consultancy fees (paid to university) from Boston Scientific. D.D.M.: member of the ISTH Council and consultant to the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation, the American Society of Hematology, and Believe Ltd on matters related to future research and workforce development in the areas of hematology and inherited bleeding disorders. A.C.: serves on the advisory board of Novo Nordisk and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Grifols, Takeda, and Roche. E.V.D.P.: medical consultant for the area of the Brazilian Ministry of Health responsible for the national program of hereditary bleeding disorders. S.M.: member of the ISTH Council and reports participation in advisory or educational activities with AbbVie, Bayer, Astra Zeneca, Alveron (Advisory Board), Hemab, Norgine, Sanofi, Synapse, and Viatris; all honoraria are being paid to her institution. Y.F.-Y, T.S., and C.S. report no conflict of interest.

Background: Hiatal hernia (HH) is a common condition. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of HH., Methods: Systematic reviews were conducted for four key questions regarding the treatment of HH in adults: surgical treatment of asymptomatic HH versus surveillance; use of mesh versus no mesh; performing a fundoplication versus no fundoplication; and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus redo fundoplication for recurrent HH. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology by subject experts. When the evidence was insufficient to base recommendations on, expert opinion was utilized instead. Recommendations for future research were also proposed., Results: The panel provided one conditional recommendation and two expert opinions for adults with HH. The panel suggested routinely performing a fundoplication in the repair of HH, though this was based on low certainty evidence. There was insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations regarding surgical repair of asymptomatic HH or conversion to RYGB in recurrent HH, and therefore, only expert opinions were offered. The panel suggested that select asymptomatic patients may be offered surgical repair, with criteria outlined. Similarly, it suggested that conversion to RYGB for management of recurrent HH may be appropriate in certain patients and again described criteria. The evidence for the routine use of mesh in HH repair was equivocal and the panel deferred making a recommendation., Conclusions: These recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of HH and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and consideration of patient values to optimize outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs will improve the evidence base and may allow for stronger recommendations in future evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of HH., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Regarding medico-legal malpractice suits, lawyers and insurers focus on informed consent documentation. Unfortunately, there is no standard protocol for obtaining informed consent for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections. The objective of the present study was to create a pre-designed, evidence-based informed consent form specifically for PRP injections. The current evidence on the medico-legal implications of PRP injections was accessed, as well as informed consent in general and specifically informed consent in PRP injections. Additionally, we interviewed orthopaedic surgeons and patients who had undergone PRP injections in the past year using a semi-structured approach. A legally valid and evidence-based informed consent form for PRP injections ensures rights, encouraging open communication and transparency between the patient and surgeon. Moreover, if a lawsuit arose, informed consent would be a critical document in surgeons' defence and would withstand scrutiny from lawyers and the judiciary. An evidence-based informed consent form for PRP injections was elaborated and reviewed by a legal expert to ensure adherence to legal proprieties. The final form of the informed consent for PRP injection was administered for one year and validated at our institution., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This report aimed to examine temporal changes in the number of recommendations on management of infective endocarditis in the European and American guidelines. The number of recommendations has increased since 2004 without an increment in evidence base in the European iteration. American guidelines have reduced the number of recommendations with a main evidence base of level B., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Lauge Østergaard: Independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation for the research of mitral valve regurgitation. Lars Køber: Speakers honorarium from Novo, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer and Bayer Emil Loldrup Fosbøl: Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Association: Independent research grant related to valvular heart disease and endocarditis. Sofie Truong, Eva Havers-Borgersen and Jeppe Petersen: None., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)