Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.
Humans; Data Collection/standards; Checklist; Evidence-Based Medicine/methods; Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards; Statistics as Topic/standards
BACKGROUND: Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. METHODS: We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. RESULTS: We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. INTERPRETATION: The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.
2014-02
Schunemann HJ; Wiercioch W; Etxeandia I; Falavigna M; Santesso N; Mustafa RA; Ventresca M; Brignardello-Petersen R; Laisaar Kaja-Triin; Kowalski S; Baldeh T; Zhang Y; Raid U; Neumann I; Norris S; Thornton J; Harbour R; Treweek S; Guyatt G; Alonso-Coello P; Reinap M; Brozek J; Oxman A; Akl EA
Canadian Medical Association Journal
2014
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
Journal Article
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.131237" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">10.1503/cmaj.131237</a>
Methodological survey of designed uneven randomization trials (DU-RANDOM): a protocol
Background Although even randomization (that is, approximately 1:1 randomization ratio in study arms) provides the greatest statistical power, designed uneven randomization (DUR), (for example, 1:2 or 1:3) is used to increase participation rates. Until now, no convincing data exists addressing the impact of DUR on participation rates in trials. The objective of this study is to evaluate the epidemiology and to explore factors associated with DUR. Methods We will search for reports of RCTs published within two years in 25 general medical journals with the highest impact factor according to the Journal Citation Report (JCR)-2010. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and extract relevant information from eligible RCTs in duplicate and using standardized forms. We will report the prevalence of DUR trials, the reported reasons for using DUR, and perform a linear regression analysis to estimate the association between the randomization ratio and the associated factors, including participation rate, type of informed consent, clinical area, and so on. Discussion A clearer understanding of RCTs with DUR and its association with factors in trials, for example, participation rate, can optimize trial design and may have important implications for both researchers and users of the medical literature.
2014-01
Wu Darong; Akl EA; Guyatt G; Devereaux PJ; Brignardello-Petersen R; Prediger B; Patel K; Patel N; Lu Taoying; Zhang Y; Falavigna M; Santesso N; Mustafa RA; Zhou Qi; Briel M; Schunemann HJ
Trials
2014
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
Journal Article
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-33" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">10.1186/1745-6215-15-33</a>