Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations

BMC Medical Research Methodology

P. Alonso-Coello¹  RB. Haynes⁸  F. Salcedo-Fernandez⁶  J. Gracia⁷  MD. Estrada¹  P. Díaz del Campo⁵  L. Barajas-Nava⁹  A. Louro-González²  D. Rigau⁹  A. Kotzeva¹  I. Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta⁴  MM. Trujillo-Martín^1,10  E. García Álvarez^1,11  D. López^1,12  RWM. Vernooij⁹  I. Solà⁹  J. Lawson⁸  I. Araya³  AJ. Sanabria⁹  L. Martínez García⁹ 

[1]CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain

[2]Centro de Saúde de Cambre, Xerencia de Xestión Integrada de A Coruña SERGAS, A Coruña, Spain

[3]Evidence Based Dentistry Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

[4]Osteba, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment, Vitoria, Spain

[5]Health Technology Assessment Unit (UETS), Subdirección General de Tecnología e Innovación Sanitaria, Consejería de Sanidad, Madrid, Spain

[6]GuíaSalud-Aragon Institute of Health Sciences, Zaragoza, Spain

[7]National Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the NHS, Madrid, Spain

[8]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

[9]Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

[10]Fundación Canaria de Investigación y Salud (FUNCIS), Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Tenerife, Spain

[11]NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Ayr, UK

[12]Department of Epidemiology, Sub Secretariat of Public Health, Ministry of Health, Santiago, Chile

关键词: Updating;    Methods;    Knowledge translation;    Information storage and retrieval;    Evidence-based medicine;    Dissemination and implementation;    Diffusion of innovation;    Clinical guidelines;   

Others  :  1222425
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0058-2

 received in 2015-05-22, accepted in 2015-07-22,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

A major challenge in updating clinical guidelines is to efficiently identify new, relevant evidence. We evaluated the efficiency and feasibility of two new approaches: the development of restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries for MEDLINE and the use of the PLUS (McMaster Premium Literature Service) database.

Methods

We evaluated a random sample of recommendations from a national guideline development program and identified the references that would potentially trigger an update (key references) using an exhaustive approach.

We designed restrictive search strategies using the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive search strategies and applying broad and narrow filters. We developed PLUS search strategies, matching Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) terms with guideline topics. We compared the number of key references retrieved by these approaches with those retrieved by the exhaustive approach.

Results

The restrictive approach retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (12,486 versus 39,136), and identified 89.9 % (62/69) of key references and 88 % (22/25) of recommendation updates. The use of PLUS retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (4,486 versus 39,136) and identified substantially fewer key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and fewer recommendation updates (10/25, 40 %).

Conclusions

The proposed restrictive approach is a highly efficient and feasible method to identify new evidence that triggers a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database proved to be a suboptimal approach and suggests the need for topic-specific tailoring.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Martínez García et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Martínez García L, Sanabria AJ, García Alvarez E, Trujillo-Martín MM, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Kotzeva A et al.. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ. 2014; 186(16):1211-9.
• [2]Alderson LJ, Alderson P, Tan T. Median life span of a cohort of national institute for health and care excellence clinical guidelines was about 60 months. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(1):52-5.
• [3]Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147(4):224-33.
• [4]Banzi R, Cinquini M, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Pecoraro V, Tagliabue L et al.. Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5856.
• [5]Vernooij RW, Sanabria AJ, Solà I, Alonso-Coello P, Martínez García L et al.. Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks. Implement Sci. 2014; 9:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Becker M, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Partial updating of clinical practice guidelines often makes more sense than full updating: a systematic review on methods and the development of an updating procedure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(1):33-45.
• [7]Martínez García L, Arévalo-Rodríguez I, Solà I, Haynes RB, Vandvik PO, Alonso-Coello P et al.. Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:109. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, Morton SC, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM et al.. Validity of the agency for healthcare research and quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA. 2001; 286(12):1461-7.
• [9]Gartlehner G, West SL, Lohr KN, Kahwati L, Johnson JG, Harris RP et al.. Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004; 16(5):399-406.
• [10]Gartlehner G, West SL, Lohr KN, Kahwati L, Johnson JG, Harris RP et al.. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(8):755-62.
• [11]Hemens BJ, Haynes RB. McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS) performed well for identifying new studies for updated cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(1):62-72.
• [12]Sagliocca L, De Masi S, Ferrigno L, Mele A, Traversa G. A pragmatic strategy for the review of clinical evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013; 19(4):689-96.
• [13]Shekelle PG, Motala A, Johnsen B, Newberry SJ. Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2014; 3:13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, Walters L, Wilczynski N, Jedraszewski D et al.. Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA. 2006; 295(15):1801-8.
• [15]Holland J, Haynes RB, McMaster PLUS. McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS): an evidence-based medicine information service delivered on the Web. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005; 340:4.
• [16]Martínez García L, Sanabria AJ, Araya I, Lawson J, Haynes RB, Rigau D et al.. Strategies to assess the validity of recommendations: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2013; 8(1):94. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005; 330(7482):68.
• [18]Guidelines by topic. Edinburgh (Scotland): Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network — Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2013. Available: www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/published/index.html (accessed 2014 Oct 1).
• [19]Clinical practice guideline on the management of major depression in adults. Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Spanish SHN: avalia-t No 2006/06, Madrid; 2008.
• [20]Working Group of the Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood and Juvenile Obesity. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, coordinator; Clinical Practice Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood and Juvenile Obesity; CPGs: Quality Plan for the Spanish National Healthcare System of the Spanish Ministry for Health and Social Policy; Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment; 2009. Clinical Practice Guideline: CAHTA no. 2007/25
• [21]Clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer treatment. Clinical Practice Guidelines in the NHS I + CS No 2006/02, Madrid; 2008.
• [22]Quality plan for the national health system of the ministry of health and consumer affairs; Catalan agency for health technology assessment and research. Clinical Practice Guideline: AATRM Number 2006/15, Madrid; 2008.
• [23]Lyratzopoulos G, Barnes S, Stegenga H, Peden S, Campbell B et al.. Updating clinical practice recommendations: is it worthwhile and when? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012; 28(1):29-35.
• [24]Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(9):944-52.