A systematic decision-making process on the need for updating clinical practice guidelines proved to be feasible in a pilot study

Monika Becker; Thomas Jaschinski; Michaela Eikermann; Tim Mathes; Stefanie Bühn; Wolfgang Koppert; Andreas Leffler; Edmund Neugebauer; Dawid Pieper

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.011

A systematic decision-making process on the need for updating clinical practice guidelines proved to be feasible in a pilot study

J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr:96:101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.011. Epub 2017 Dec 28.

Authors

Monika Becker¹, Thomas Jaschinski², Michaela Eikermann³, Tim Mathes², Stefanie Bühn², Wolfgang Koppert⁴, Andreas Leffler⁴, Edmund Neugebauer⁵, Dawid Pieper²

Affiliations

¹ Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: [email protected].
² Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany.
³ Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany; Department of Evidence Based Medicine, Medical Advisory Service of Social Health Insurance (MDS), Theodor-Althoff-Straße 47, 45133 Essen, Germany.
⁴ Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
⁵ Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany; Brandenburg Medical School-Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Str.38, 16816 Neuruppin, Germany.

PMID: 29289763
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.011

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to test and evaluate a new decision-making process on the need for updating within the update of a German clinical practice guideline (CPG).

Study design and setting: The pilot study comprised (1) limited searches in Pubmed to identify new potentially relevant evidence, (2) an online survey among the members of the CPG group to assess the need for update, and (3) a consensus conference for determination and prioritization of guideline sections with a high need for update. Subsequently, we conducted a second online survey to evaluate the procedure.

Results: The searches resulted in 902 abstracts that were graded as new potentially relevant evidence. Twenty five of 39 members of the CPG group (64%) participated in the online survey. Seventy six percent of those took part in the second online survey. The evaluation study found on average a grade of support of the procedure regarding the determination of the need for update of 3.65 (standard deviation: 0.76) on a likert scale with 1 = "no support" to 5 = "very strong support."

Conclusion: The conducted procedure presents a systematic approach for assessing whether and to what extent a CPG requires updating and enables setting priorities for which particular guideline section to update within a CPG.

Keywords: Evidence-based practice; Guidelines; Methodology; Out-of-date; Prioritization; Updating.

MeSH terms

Consensus
Decision Making*
Evidence-Based Medicine
Feasibility Studies
Germany
Humans
Pilot Projects
Practice Guidelines as Topic*
Research Design
Surveys and Questionnaires