Search

COVID-19-related critical and acute illness are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). These evidence-based recommendations of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, acute illness, and those being discharged from the hospital, who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including three patient representatives, and applied a conflicts of interest management policy to minimize potential bias. The Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and MacGRADE Centres at McMaster University supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to June 2023). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty of the evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an executive summary of three updated recommendations that have been published which concludes the living phase of the guidelines. For critically ill patients with COVID-19, the panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of (a) prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation and (b) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation. For acutely ill patients with COVID-19, conditional recommendations were made in favor of (a) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation and (b) therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. The panel also issued a conditional recommendation against the use of post-discharge extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. These three conditional recommendations were made based on low or very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19-related illness., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Hematology.)

Objective: The PANELVIEW questionnaire identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the process and methods used for developing health guidelines from the guideline development group's perspective. To expand its use, PANELVIEW ideally should be available in different languages. We aimed to cross-culturally adapt PANELVIEW into Spanish and assess its acceptability, validity, and reliability., Study Design and Setting: To translate and culturally adapt PANELVIEW to Spanish, we followed ISPOR's Translation and Cultural Adaptation Good Practice Principles guidelines. The process consisted of 1) forward and back translation, 2) input from an expert panel, and 3) cognitive debriefing interviews. We assessed the content validity with experts in guideline development who rated instrument items for relevance to determine the item and scale content validity index (I-CVI; S-CVI). We tested the reliability with health guidelines panels from Spanish-speaking countries and measured internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha). We examined acceptability through the number of missing responses for each item., Results: The content comparison between the back-translation and the original version showed that most items (24/34) were conceptually equivalent but with grammatical differences. Through the cognitive interviews, we identified six items with wording issues, ten with clarity issues, and two with applicability issues. I-CVI ranged from 0.77 to 1.00, with two items needing revision. S-CVI was 0.92, showing excellent content validity. The PANELVIEW Spanish version demonstrated very good reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.96). Panel members responded to all items, showing good acceptability., Conclusion: The PANELVIEW Spanish version was conceptually equivalent to the original version and provided satisfactory evidence of acceptability, validity and reliability., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Hereditary and acquired thrombophilia are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether testing helps guide management decisions is controversial. These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about thrombophilia testing. ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel covering clinical and methodological expertise and minimizing bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre provided logistical support, performed systematic reviews, and created evidence profiles and evidence-to-decision tables. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was used. Recommendations were subject to public comment. The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and associated management. Nearly all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence due to modeling assumptions. The panel issued a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and conditional recommendations for thrombophilia testing in the following scenarios: (a) patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors; (b) patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis, in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued; (c) individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance to avoid COCs/hormone replacement therapy; (d) pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types; and (e) patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE. For all other questions, the panel provided conditional recommendations against testing for thrombophilia., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This work was supported by grants from Canadian Institutes of Health (FRN VR4-172741 and GA3-177732) and WHO during the conduct of the study. EA, HJS and PA-C report contribution to the development of the original five criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing good practice statements. The remaining authors have nothing else to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice., Objective: These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer., Methods: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer., Conclusions: The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Context: Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality., Objective: To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations., Results: The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia., Conclusion: The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice., Objective: These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer., Methods: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer., Conclusions: The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;▪:1-31)., (© 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Published by Elsevier Inc and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines., Design and Setting: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic., Main Outcome Measures: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool., Results: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling., Conclusions: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HJS, AS, VAW report grants from Canadian Instituites of Health during the conduct of the study—FRN VR4-172741 & GA3-177732. RAM reports grants from WHO, grants from ASH, grants from ACR, other from Boehringer ingelheim international, grants from NIDDK, outside the submitted work. EA, PA-C and HJS report contribution to the development of the original five criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing good practice statements. The remaining authors have nothing else to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Short-stay admissions, with lengths of stay less than 24 h, are used for various surgeries without increasing adverse events. However, it is unclear if short-stay admissions would be safe for loop ileostomy reversals. This review aimed to compare outcomes between short (≤24 hours) and long (>24 hours) admissions for adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals., Methods: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing short- to long-stay admissions in adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. Meta-analyses were conducted for mortality, reoperation, readmission, and non-reoperative complications. Quality of evidence was assessed with grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) guidelines., Results: Four observational studies enrolling 24,628 patients were included. Moderate certainty evidence suggests there is no difference in readmissions between short- and long-stay admissions (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28, p 0.86). Low certainty evidence demonstrates that short stays may reduce non-reoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62, p < 0.01). Very low certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in reoperations between short and long stays (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.04, p 0.87)., Conclusions: Moderate certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in readmission rates between short- and long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals. Less robust evidence suggests equivalence in reoperations and a decrease in non-reoperative complications. Future prospective trials are required to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of short-stay admissions., Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=307381 Prospero (CRD42022307381), January 30, 2022., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to rate the certainty domain of imprecision is presently not fully operationalized for rating down by two levels and when different baseline risk or uncertainty in these risks are considered. In addition, there are scenarios in which lowering the certainty of evidence by three levels for imprecision is more appropriate than lowering it by two levels. In this article, we conceptualize and operationalize rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels for imprecision using the contextualized GRADE approaches and making decisions., Methods: Through iterative discussions and refinement in online meetings and through email communication, we developed draft guidance to rating the certainty of evidence down by up to three levels based on examples. The lead authors revised the approach according to the feedback and the comments received during these meetings and developed GRADE guidance for how to apply it. We presented a summary of the results to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meeting for feedback in October 2021 (approximately 80 people) where the approach was formally approved., Results: This guidance provides GRADE's novel approach for the considerations about rating down for imprecision by one, two and three levels based on serious, very serious and extremely serious concerns. The approach includes identifying or defining thresholds for health outcomes that correspond to trivial or none, small, moderate or large effects and using them to rate imprecision. It facilitates the use of evidence to decision frameworks and also provides guidance for how to address imprecision about implausible large effects and trivial or no effects using the concept of the 'review information size' and for varying baseline risks. The approach is illustrated using practical examples, an online calculator and graphical displays and can be applied to dichotomous and continuous outcomes., Conclusion: In this GRADE guidance article, we provide updated guidance for how to rate imprecision using the partially and fully contextualized GRADE approaches for making recommendations or decisions, considering alternate baseline risks and for both dichotomous and continuous outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines., Results: The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk., Conclusions: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines., Results: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants., Conclusion: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Background: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence., Objective: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care., Design: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders., Setting: International., Participants: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines., Measurements: Not applicable., Results: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication., Limitation: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented., Conclusion: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines., Primary Funding Source: None.

In an effort to enhance the trustworthiness of its clinical practice guidelines, the Endocrine Society has recently adopted new policies and more rigorous methodologies for its guideline program. In this Clinical Practice Guideline Communication, we describe these recent enhancements-many of which reflect greater adherence to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to guideline development-in addition to the rationale for such changes. Improvements to the Society's guideline development practices include, but are not limited to, enhanced inclusion of nonendocrinologist experts, including patient representatives, on guideline development panels; implementation of a more rigorous conflict/duality of interest policy; a requirement that all formal recommendations must be demonstrably underpinned by systematic evidence review; the explicit use of GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks; greater use and explanation of standardized guideline language; and a more intentional approach to guideline updating. Lastly, we describe some of the experiential differences our guideline readers are most likely to notice., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and similar Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks require its users to judge how substantial the effects of interventions are on desirable and undesirable people-important health outcomes. However, decision thresholds (DTs) that could help understand the magnitude of intervention effects and serve as reference for interpretation of findings are not yet available.The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use DTs for EtD judgments about the magnitude of health benefits and harms. We hypothesise that approximate DTs could have the ability to discriminate between the existing four categories of EtD judgments (Trivial, Small, Moderate, Large), support panels of decision-makers in their work, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a methodological randomised controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the DTs. We will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, we will investigate the validity of our DTs by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that our DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data., Ethics and Dissemination: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this study as a quality improvement study and determined that it requires no further consent. Survey participants will be required to read a consent statement in order to participate in this study at the beginning of the trial. This statement reads: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to identify indicative DTs that could assist users of the GRADE EtD frameworks in making judgments. Your input will be used in determining these indicative thresholds. By completing this survey, you provide consent that the anonymised data collected will be used for the research study and to be summarised in aggregate in publication and electronic tools., Protocol Registration Number: NCT05237635., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HJS is the co-chair of the GRADE working group. Decision thresholds will be used in the GRADEpro app and for other projects. Currently no financial interests. HJS and JLB are codevelopers of the GRADEpro app. US is an unpaid member of Working Group for the German Clinical S3 Guideline Prevention of Cervical Cancer; Committee for Cancer Screening of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health; Oncology Advisory Council of the Federal Ministry of Health, Austria., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Amphetamine-type stimulants continue to dominate the global drug markets. Despite this, no pharmacotherapy has been approved for treatment of amphetamine and methamphetamine use disorder (AMD). We evaluate the efficacy of mirtazapine in the treatment of AMD, given emerging evidence that it may alleviate methamphetamine and amphetamine (MA/A) cravings and withdrawals., Methods: We searched five databases from inception until January 28, 2021 for studies with a comparator group evaluating mirtazapine for treatment of AMD. We collected data on reduction in MA/A use, treatment retention, sexual behaviors, depression symptoms, cravings and adverse events. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. Where appropriate, we conducted fixed-effect meta-analyses weighted by inverse variance and calculated the absolute risk reduction., Results: Among the 206 studies screened, we included two parallel-arm placebo-controlled RCTs conducted among cis-gender men and transgender women (n = 180). We found that mirtazapine use likely results in a small reduction of methamphetamine use compared to placebo after 12-weeks (relative risk [RR]=0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 1.03; n = 133; moderate certainty evidence due to imprecision). We also found that the use of mirtazapine probably does not improve retention in treatment (RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.12; n = 180; moderate certainty evidence) or depression symptom severity (mean difference [MD]=0.45, 95% CI: -2.88, 3.78; n = 53; moderate certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events., Conclusions and Relevance: Mirtazapine probably results in a small reduction in continued methamphetamine use among cisgender men and transgender women with AMD, but probably does not improve patients' retention in treatment or depression symptom severity., Study Registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021236806., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health guideline development requires sequential prioritization of the guideline topic, questions, and health outcomes. In this paper we report on new approaches for prioritizing questions and outcomes in guidelines., Methods: Ten guideline panels on venous thromboembolism rated potential guideline questions on a 9-point scale according to their overall importance and 6 criteria: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. We randomized panelists to rate one potential question with and without the 6 criteria. Panelists rated importance of outcomes, defined with health outcome descriptors (HODs), using a 9-point scale, and health utility of outcomes on a visual analogue scale., Results: Of 469 potential questions identified, 72.5% were rated as important but not of high priority, and 25.4% as high priority. Each criterion was significantly associated with the overall importance rating. The overall importance rating means were 5.96 (SD 2.38) and 6.53 (SD 2.45) (P = 0.25) for those randomized to rate questions with and without the criteria, respectively. The mean importance rating for 121 outcomes was 6.01 (SD 1.25), with 35.5% rated as critical for decision-making. Panelists provided health utility ratings for 127 outcomes, with a minimum mean rating of 0.12 (SD 0.10) and maximum of 0.91 (SD 0.15)., Conclusion: Our structured process provided information to help explain perspectives of question importance, to facilitate panels' outcome prioritization, and to facilitate decision-making in guideline development., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Guideline developers consider cost-effectiveness evidence in decision making to determine value for money. This consideration in the guideline development process can be informed either by formal and dedicated economic evaluations or by systematic reviews of existing studies. To inform the American Society of Hematology guideline on the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), we conducted a systematic review focused on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for VTE within the guideline scope. We systematically searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry; summarized; and critically appraised the economic evidence on diagnostic strategies for VTE. We identified 49 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with 26 on pulmonary embolism (PE) and 24 on deep vein thrombosis (DVT). For the diagnosis of PE, strategies including d-dimer to exclude PE were cost-effective compared with strategies without d-dimer testing. The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) in relation to ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan was inconclusive. CTPA or V/Q scan following ultrasound or d-dimer results could be cost-effective or even cost saving. For DVT, studies supporting strategies with d-dimer and/or ultrasound were cost-effective, supporting the recommendation that for patients at low (unlikely) VTE risk, using d-dimer as the initial test reduces the need for diagnostic imaging. Our systematic review informed the American Society of Hematology guideline recommendations about d-dimer, V/Q scan and CTPA for PE diagnosis, and d-dimer and ultrasound for DVT diagnosis., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who are discharged from the hospital and who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation., Conclusions: This recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials assessing the role of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Objective: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines., Study Design and Setting: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework., Results: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process., Conclusion: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Clear communication of health care recommendations to patients and the public is essential. Current work has focused on creating patient versions of guidelines without much attention to single recommendations. In this study, we built on previously conducted research to test a template and explore the public's perceptions of, and attitudes towards plain language guideline recommendations., Study Design and Setting: We conducted four focus groups with people interested in healthy aging to obtain general attitudes, perceptions, and understanding of recommendations. We then conducted nine user-tests of Plain Language Recommendations developed from GRADE guidelines. We performed a directed content analysis, and finalized a template for a Plain Language Recommendation., Results: We identified themes related to personalized information; strength of recommendations; support with health care and appointments; amount and credibility of information; and formatting. When recommendations were conditional, participants wanted more information about why and what to consider. The template for a Plain Language Recommendation is available in the GRADEpro software to facilitate automation., Conclusion: We created a Plain Language Recommendation template to communicate specific information from guidelines to patients and the public. Broad application of the template is warranted and future research could measure the impact on understanding and behavior change., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to develop an approach that can be used where baseline risk estimates that are directly applicable to prioritized patient-important outcomes are not available from published studies., Study Design: The McMaster University GRADE Centre and the ASH guideline panel for the prevention of VTE in surgical patients developed a modeling approach based on explicit assumptions about the distribution of symptoms, anatomical location, and severity of VTE events., Results: We applied the approach to derive modeled estimates of baseline risk. These estimates were used to calculated absolute measures of anticipated effects that informed the discussion of the evidence and the formulation of 30 guideline recommendations., Conclusion: Our approach can assist guideline developers facing a lack of information about baseline risk estimates that directly apply to outcomes of interest. The use of modeled estimates increases transparency in the process and makes the baseline risk used by guideline experts explicit during their decision-making., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Trustworthy health guidelines should provide recommendations, document the development process, and highlight implementation information. Our objective was to develop a guideline manuscript template to help authors write a complete and useful report. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Centre collaborated with the American Society of Hematology (ASH) to develop guidelines for the management of venous thromboembolism. A template for reporting the guidelines was developed based on prior approaches and refined using input from other key stakeholders. The proposed guideline manuscript template includes: (1) title for guideline identification, (2) abstract, including a summary of key recommendations, (3) overview of all recommendations (executive summary), and (4) the main text, providing sufficient detail about the entire process, including objectives, background, and methodological decisions from panel selection and conflict-of-interest management to criteria for updating, as well as supporting information, such as links to online (interactive) tables. The template further allows for tailoring to the specific topic, using examples. Initial experience with the ASH guideline manuscript template was positive, and challenges included drafting descriptions of recommendations involving multiple management pathways, tailoring the template for a specific guideline, and choosing key recommendations to highlight. Feedback from a larger group of guideline authors and users will be needed to evaluate its usefulness and refine. The proposed guideline manuscript template is the first detailed template for transparent and complete reporting of guidelines. Consistent application of the template may simplify the preparation of an evidence-based guideline manuscript and facilitate its use., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 3 patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process by performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 5 March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update on guidelines published in February 2021., Results: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE., Conclusions: This recommendation was based on low certainty in the evidence, which underscores the need for additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients. Other key research priorities include better evidence regarding predictors of thrombosis and bleeding risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and the impact of nonanticoagulant therapies (eg, antiviral agents, corticosteroids) on thrombotic risk., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Objective: Stakeholders involved in developing recommendations need to have a common understanding of health outcomes and the perspective of affected individuals. In this paper we report on the development and application of health outcome descriptors (HODs) to inform decision-making by panels developing guideline recommendations., Study Design and Setting: Ten American Society of Hematology guideline panels addressing the management of venous thromboembolism developed HODs, rated their importance and health utility, applied them to prioritize outcomes, and to balance potential benefits and harms to formulate recommendations., Results: It was feasible to involve 18 panelists in developing 127 HODs. There was high agreement (82%) across the ten panels about outcomes perceived as critical or important for decision-making. Panelists' utility ratings of the outcomes were strongly correlated with panelists' outcome importance ratings (Pearson's r=-0.88). HODs were incorporated into Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks to support a shared understanding of health outcomes in panel deliberations., Conclusion: HODs serve as a valuable tool to promote an explicit, common understanding of health outcomes during clinical guideline development and across different stakeholders. They are helpful across multiple steps of guideline development to facilitate panels' judgements, aiming to avoid variable implicit interpretations of health outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: One essential requirement of trustworthy guidelines is that they should be based on systematic reviews of the best available evidence. The GRADE Working Group has provided guidance for evaluating the certainty of evidence based on several domains. However, for many clinical questions, published evidence may be limited, too indirect or simply not exist. In this brief report (GRADE notes), we describe our method of developing evidence-based recommendations when publisheddirect evidence was lacking., Study Design and Setting: When direct published literature was absent, an expert evidence survey was administered to panel members about their unpublished observations and case series. Focus was on collecting data about cases and outcome, not panel opinions., Results: Out of 26 questions prioritized by the panel for pediatric venous thromboembolism, 12 had no, very limited, or very low certainty of evidence to inform them. The panel survey was administered for these questions., Conclusions: Areas of sparse evidence often reflect key questions that are critical to address in clinical practice guidelines due to the uncertainty among health care providers. The expert evidence approach used in this study is one method for panels totransparently deal with the lack of published evidence to directly inform recommendations., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Prompt evaluation and therapeutic intervention of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) are of paramount importance for improvement in outcomes. We systematically reviewed outcomes in patients with suspected PE, including mortality, incidence of recurrent PE, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and postthrombotic sequelae. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included 22 studies with 15 865 patients. Among patients who were diagnosed with PE and discharged with anticoagulation, 3-month follow-up revealed that all-cause mortality was 5.69% (91/1599; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.56-6.83), mortality from PE was 1.19% (19/1597; 95% CI, 0.66-1.72), recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 1.38% (22/1597; 95% CI: 0.81-1.95), and major bleeding occurred in 0.90% (2/221%; 95% CI, 0-2.15). In patients with a low pretest probability (PTP) and negative D-dimer, 3-month follow-up revealed mortality from PE was 0% (0/808) and incidence of VTE was 0.37% (4/1094; 95% CI: 0.007-0.72). In patients with intermediate PTP and negative D-dimer, 3-month follow-up revealed that mortality from PE was 0% (0/2747) and incidence of VTE was 0.46% (14/3015; 95% CI: 0.22-0.71). In patients with high PTP and negative computed tomography (CT) scan, 3-month follow-up revealed mortality from PE was 0% (0/651) and incidence of VTE was 0.84% (11/1302; 95% CI: 0.35-1.34). We further summarize outcomes evaluated by various diagnostic tests and diagnostic pathways (ie, D-dimer followed by CT scan)., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations., Results: Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer., Conclusions: Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE., Conclusions: These recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Objectives: Health guidelines are a key knowledge translation tool produced and used by numerous stakeholders worldwide. Effective participation in guideline development groups or development groups is crucial for guideline success, yet little guidance exists for members of these groups. In this study, we present the Guideline Participant Tool (GPT) to support effective participation in guideline groups, in particular those using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Study Design and Setting: We used a mixed methods and iterative approach to develop a tool to support guideline participation. We used the findings of a published systematic review to develop an initial list of items for considerations for guideline participants. Then, we refined this list through key informant interviews with guideline chairs, sponsors, and participants. Finally, we validated the GPT in three guideline groups with 26 guideline group members., Results: The initial list of items based on 37 articles from the existing systematic review included 15 themes and 61 items for a draft tool. Ten key informant interviews helped us refine the list to include the following themes: selection of participants, guideline group process, and tool format. 26 respondents completed the validation survey from three guideline groups. Refinement of the tool ultimately generated a GPT with 33 items for participant consideration before, during, and in follow-up to guideline group meetings., Conclusion: The GPT contains helpful guidance for all guideline participants, particularly those without previous guideline experience. Future research should further explore the need for additional tools to support guideline participants and identify and develop strategies for improving guideline members' participation in guideline groups. This work will be incorporated into INGUIDE.org guideline training and credentialing efforts by the Guidelines International Network and McMaster University., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In Poland, remote teams and work outside of the company were rare by this time. Almost all organizations had to virtualize at a faster rate by delegating their employees to work remotely, facing many challenges that they had to overcome in a short time. This article aims to check the directions and effects of changes in the digitalization of financial-accounting processes concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of use financial-accounting programs in remote work and upgrade of work organization, availability to internet platforms, identification security level of data, defining barriers that influence the limit of digitalization processes and financial-accounting programs were made., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.)