Processes for updating guidelines: protocol for a systematic review
Related Experiment Videos
Karen Cardwell1, Joan Quigley1, Barbara Clyne1,2
1Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Background:
Clinical Guidelines are systematically developed statements, based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, to assist practitioner and service users' decisions. Clinical guidelines require updating to ensure validly of the recommendations contained within. The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the most recent guideline update processes, including prioritisation methods, used by international or national groups who provide methods guidance for developing and updating clinical guidelines.
Methods:
A combination of searching a pre-defined list of international and national organisations that provide methods guidance for developing and updating clinical guidelines, together with grey literature searching, will be undertaken to identify relevant handbooks. This will be supplemented by a systematic literature search of Medline (EBSCO), Embase (OVID) and The Cochrane Methodology Register. As guideline development methodology has evolved considerably, the overall search span for this systematic review will be the last 11-years (2011-2021). Publications eligible for inclusion are methodological handbooks that provide updating guidance, including prioritisation methods, for clinical guidelines and peer-reviewed articles that describe or have implemented updating guidance, including prioritisation methods. Using Covidence, two reviewers will independently review titles/abstracts and full texts. Where disagreements occur, discussions will be held to reach consensus and where necessary, a third reviewer will be involved. Methodological handbooks will be quality assessed (using the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist) independently by two reviewers and any disagreements will be resolved by deliberation, or if necessary, a third reviewer. Data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked for inaccuracies/omissions by a second. A narrative synthesis will be undertaken.
Conclusions:
Updating clinical guidelines is an iterative process that is both resource intensive and time-consuming. The findings of this systematic review may support clinical guideline developers to ensure appropriate investment of resources.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Guidelines for Nursing Documentation II
Timely documentation is crucial to ensure continuity of care for patients. Any delays in recording or reporting medical information can result in medical errors and even adverse patient outcomes. From medication administration to diagnostic test results, every detail must be accurately and promptly documented to provide the best possible care for patients.
01:30Guidelines for Nursing Documentation I
Factual:
The following points emphasize the significance of upholding accurate and unbiased documentation in healthcare.
01:18Guidelines and Strategies for Safe Computer Charting
Maintain Confidentiality and Security:
01:19Guidelines For Measuring Vital Signs
Before taking a patient's vital signs, a nurse would consider and assess the patient's comfort level and ensure appropriate equipment is available.
01:10Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...