Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

Implementation Science

Pablo Alonso-Coello⁴  Per Olav Vandvik²  R Brian Haynes¹  Ivan Solà⁴  Ingrid Arévalo-Rodríguez³  Laura Martínez García⁴ 

[1] McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway;Clinical Research Institute, GETS, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia;Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

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

Others  :  813873
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-7-109

 received in 2012-04-10, accepted in 2012-09-12,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Scientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs.

Study design and setting

We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information.

Results

We included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations’ Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years.

Conclusions

There is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Martínez García et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Working Group on CPG Updates: Updating Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Spanish National Health System: Methodology Handbook. Madrid: National Plan for the National Health System of the Spanish Ministry for Health and Social Policy; Aragon Health Sciences Institute (I+CS); Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Spanish National Health System: I+CS; 2009.
• [2]Clark E, Donovan EF, Schoettker P: From outdated to updated, keeping clinical guidelines valid. Int J Qual Health Care 2006, 18(3):165-166.
• [3]Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, et al.: Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA 2001, 286(12):1461-1467.
• [4]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (January 2009): The guidelines manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk webcite.
• [5]Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al.: A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60(11):1095-1104.
• [6]Alonso-Coello P, Martínez García L, Carrasco JM, Solà I, Qureshi S, Burgers JS: The updating of clinical practice guidelines: insights from an international survey. Implement Sci 2011, 6:107. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Gartlehner G, West SL, Lohr KN, et al.: Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods. Int J Qual Health Care 2004, 16(5):399-406.
• [8]Johnston ME, Brouwers MC, Browman GP: Keeping cancer guidelines current: results of a comprehensive prospective literature monitoring strategy for twenty clinical practice guidelines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003, 19(4):646-655.
• [9]Bosquet L Guillo S Gory-Delabaere G Fervers B COSOR: Technological and scientific literature monitoring for updating clinical practice guidelines: example with use of PET scanning in patients with cancer. Alberta, Canada: Canmore; 2003:272. [Improving Outcomes Through Health Technology Assessment. 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care]
• [10]Eccles M, Rousseau N, Freemantle N: Updating evidence-based clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002, 7(2):98-103.
• [11]Gartlehner G, West SL, Lohr KN, et al.: Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods. Evid Base Libr Inform Pract 2007, 2(2):40-41.
• [12]Voisin CE, de la Varre C, Whitener L, Gartlehner G: Strategies in assessing the need for updating evidence-based guidelines for six clinical topics: an exploration of two search methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2008, 25(3):198-207.
• [13]Brouwers M, Johnston M, Browman G: Results of a prospective study to keep guidelines current. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; 2001. [17th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care: Building Bridges Between Policy, Providers, Patients and Industry]
• [14]Newton S, Merlin T, Forbes D, Phelps A, Creamer M, Hiller J: Challenges in updating evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Adelaide, Australia; 2006:141. [Third Annual Meeting Health Technology Assessment International]
• [15]Nunes V, Shaw E: When to Update Guidelines. A pragmatic approach. Lisbon; 2009. [Proceedings of the 6th Guidelines International Network Conference]
• [16]Parmelli E, Papini D, Moja L, Bandieri E, Belfiglio M, Ciccone G, et al.: Updating clinical recommendations for breast, colorectal and lung cancer treatments: an opportunity to improve methodology and clinical relevance. Ann Oncol 2011, 22(1):188-194.
• [17]Eccles M, Shekelle P, Grimshaw J, Woolf S: Updating of CPGs. Experiences from the U.K. (& USA). The Challenge of Collaboration. Berlin, Germany: International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care; 2002:238. [Satellite Symposium Clinical Practice Guidelines]
• [18]Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al.: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336(7650):924-926.
• [19]Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A: GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(4):380-382.
• [20]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.
• [21]Shekelle PG, Newberry SJ, Wu H, Suttorp M, Motala A, Lim Y-W, et al.: Identifying Signals for Updating Systematic Reviews: A Comparison of Two Methods. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. [Methods Research Report. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC042-EF] Available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ webcite.
• [22]Shultz M, De Groote SL: MEDLINE SDI services: how do they compare? J Med Libr Assoc 2003, 91(4):460-467.
• [23]Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al.: When and how to update systematic reviews. 2008. [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: MR000023]
• [24]Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, Garritty C, Coleman C, Lux L, et al.: Updating Comparative Effectiveness Reviews: Current Efforts in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. [(Prepared by the University of Ottawa EPC, RAND Corporation–Southern California EPC, Oregon EPC, University of Connecticut EPC, RTI–University of North Carolina EPC, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health EPC under Contract No. 290-02-0021 EPC2). AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC057-EF] Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm webcite.