Updating clinical guidelines
We obtained the full-text articles of the potentially eligible references for further assessment.Disagreements were solved by consensus and, if necessary, with the help of a third reviewer (LMG).].
However, so far, no systematic assessment of the reporting of updated clinical guidelines (CGs) exists.We calculated the median score per item, per domain, and overall, converting scores to a 10-point scale.Multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences according to country, type of organisation, scope, and health topic of updated CGs.We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods.Methods We developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing…Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become increasingly popular, and the methodology to develop guidelines has evolved enormously.
However, little attention has been given to the updating process, in contrast to the appraisal of the available literature.
We calculated the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for domains and overall score. The median domain score on a 10-point scale for presentation was 5.8 (range 1.7 to 10), for editorial independence 8.3 (range 3.3 to 10), and for methodology 5.7 (range 0 to 10).
The median overall score on a 10-point scale was 6.3 (range 3.1 to 10).
In total, 25 (41.7%; 25/60) of the included CGs addressed the management of a specific disease.
Other CGs address solely the treatment (25.0%; 15/60), screening (15.0%; 9/60), diagnosis (11.7%; 7/60), or prevention (6.7%; 4/60) of a healthcare problem.
We performed a systematic search to identify updated CGs published in 2015, developed by a professional society, reporting a systematic review of the evidence, and containing at least one recommendation.