Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-TOP): a sequential explanatory mixed-methods pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into formal methods of integrating patient preferences and clinical evidence to inform treatment decisions, we explored patients' experience with a personalised decision analysis intervention, for prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the antenatal period. DESIGN: Mixed-methods explanatory sequential pilot study. SETTING: Hospitals in Canada (n=1) and Spain (n=4 sites). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted part of the study virtually. PARTICIPANTS: 15 individuals with a prior venous thromboembolism who were pregnant or planning pregnancy and had been referred for counselling regarding LMWH. INTERVENTION: A shared decision-making intervention that included three components: (1) direct choice exercise; (2) preference elicitation exercises and (3) personalised decision analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire to evaluate decision quality (decisional conflict, self-efficacy and satisfaction). Semistructured interviews were then conducted to explore their experience and perceptions of the decision-making process. RESULTS: Participants in the study appreciated the opportunity to use an evidence-based decision support tool that considered their personal values and preferences and reported feeling more prepared for their consultation. However, there were mixed reactions to the standard gamble and personalised treatment recommendation. Some participants could not understand how to complete the standard gamble exercises, and others highlighted the need for more informative ways of presenting results of the decision analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the challenges and opportunities for those who wish to incorporate decision analysis to support shared decision-making for clinical decisions.

Post-consultation acute respiratory tract infection recovery: a latent class-informed analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding post-consultation symptom trajectories for patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and whether patient characteristics can be used to predict illness duration. AIM: To describe symptom trajectories in patients with RTIs, and assess baseline characteristics and adverse events associated with trajectories. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study included data about 9103 adults and children from 12 primary care studies. METHOD: A latent class-informed regression analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies was undertaken. Post-consultation symptom trajectory (severity and duration), re-consultation with same or worsening illness, and admission to hospital were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 90% of participants recovered from all symptoms by 28 days, regardless of antibiotic prescribing strategy (none, immediate, and delayed antibiotics). For studies of RTI with cough as a dominant symptom (n = 5314), four trajectories were identified: 'rapid (6 days)' (90% of participants recovered within 6 days) in 52.0%; 'intermediate (10 days)' (28.9%); 'slow progressive improvement (27 days)' (12.5%); and 'slow improvement with initial high symptom burden (27 days)' (6.6%). For cough, being aged 16-64 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.72 to 3.85 compared with <16 years), higher presenting illness baseline severity (OR 1.51, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.03), presence of lung disease (OR 1.78, 95% CI = 1.44 to 2.21), and median and above illness duration before consultation (≥7 days) (OR 1.99, 95% CI = 1.68 to 2.37) were associated with slower recovery (>10 days) compared with faster recovery (≤10 days). Re-consultations and admissions to hospital for cough were higher in those with slower recovery (ORs: 2.15, 95% CI = 1.78 to 2.60 and 7.42, 95% CI = 3.49 to 15.78, respectively). CONCLUSION: Older patients presenting with more severe, longer pre-consultation symptoms and chronic lung disease should be advised they are more likely to experience longer post-consultation illness durations, and that recovery rates are similar with and without antibiotics.

Myocardial injury after major non-cardiac surgery evaluated with advanced cardiac imaging: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) is a frequent complication caused by cardiac and non-cardiac pathophysiological mechanisms, but often it is subclinical. MINS is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, justifying the need to its diagnose and the investigation of their causes for its potential prevention. METHODS: Prospective, observational, pilot study, aiming to detect MINS, its relationship with silent coronary artery disease and its effect on future adverse outcomes in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery and without postoperative signs or symptoms of myocardial ischemia. MINS was defined by a high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentration > 14 ng/L at 48-72 h after surgery and exceeding by 50% the preoperative value; controls were the operated patients without MINS. Within 1-month after discharge, cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were performed in MINS and control subjects. Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined by a CAD-RADS category ≥ 3. The primary outcomes were prevalence of CAD among MINS and controls and incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1-year after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of individual MACE components and mortality. RESULTS: We included 52 MINS and 12 controls. The small number of included patients could be attributed to the study design complexity and the dates of later follow-ups (amid COVID-19 waves). Significant CAD by CCTA was equally found in 20 MINS and controls (30% vs 33%, respectively). Ischemic patterns (n = 5) and ischemic segments (n = 2) depicted by cardiac MRI were only observed in patients with MINS. One-year MACE were also only observed in MINS patients (15.4%). CONCLUSION: This study with advanced imaging methods found a similar CAD frequency in MINS and control patients, but that cardiac ischemic findings by MRI and worse prognosis were only observed in MINS patients. Our results, obtained in a pilot study, suggest the need of further, extended studies that screened systematically MINS and evaluated its relationship with cardiac ischemia and poor outcomes. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03438448 (19/02/2018).

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Questions and health outcomes prioritization for the development of a COVID-19 dental clinical practice guideline: A case study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical. The guideline development process includes prioritization of the guideline topic, questions and health outcomes. This case study describes the application of a new methodology to prioritize questions and rate the importance of health outcomes for a COVID-19 dental guideline. METHODS: Panel members rated the topic and the questions' overall importance, using a 9-point scale (1 = least important; 9 = most important). In addition, they rated six criteria if multiple questions received the same overall importance rating: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. Panellists also rated the importance of each outcome, defined with health outcome descriptors, using a 9-point scale and the utility of health outcomes on a visual analogue scale. The correlation between each criterion and overall question importance was tested by Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of seven topics, four were rated as high priority and three were rated as important, but not of high priority. Thirty-six percent of the questions (18/50) were rated as high priority to address in the guideline and 64% (32/50) were rated as an important question but not of high priority. Of the 11 outcomes, 72.7% were rated as critical for decision making. The mean utility rating was 0.57 (SD 0.32), with a minimum mean rating of 0.16 and a maximum of 0.76 (SD 0.23). CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrated that this approach provides a rigorous and transparent methodology to conduct the prioritizations of guideline topics, questions and health outcomes.

Recommendations for Safe Dental Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical to guide dental staff towards the safe provision of dental care; detailed knowledge of the recommendations will help to achieve the intended results. We carried out a systematic review of the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the provision of dental care issued during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Epistemonikos, and Trip databases to identify documents with recommendations intended to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during dental care. The selection process and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. The majority of CPGs recommended the use of rubber dam, high-volume evacuator, mouthwash prior to dental care, four-handed work, and mechanical barriers. The use of aerosol-generating equipment should be avoided whenever possible. In aerosol-generating procedures, the use of a N95 respirator (or similar) is recommended, in addition to a face protector, an impermeable disposable apron/gown, a cap, and gloves. The CPGs developed during the first year of the pandemic offer recommendations which guide dental staff in providing safe dental care, minimizing exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in the clinical environment. Such recommendations must, however, be updated as new evidence arises.

QUALITY APPRAISAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES ON PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES DURING THE FIRST MONTHS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on dental services provision during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Epistemonikos, Trip databases, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health to identify documents with recommendations intended to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during dental care. Reviewers independently and in duplicate assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardized scores for the 6 domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. The inter-appraiser agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Twenty-three CPGs published were included. Most of the CPGs were from America (n = 15) and Europe (n = 6). The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.93; 95%CI 0.87-0.95). The median score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 67% (IQR 20%); Stakeholder involvement 33% (IQR 14%); Rigour of development 13% (IQR 13%); Clarity of presentation 64% (IQR 31%); Applicability 19% (IQR 17%) and Editorial independence 8% (IQR 8%). Twenty two guidelines were not recommended by the reviewers. Only one of the CPGs was recommended with modifications. The median overall rate was 3 (IQR 1). All CPGs were classified as low quality. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of CPGs on dental services provision during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic was low, which makes its implementation difficult for clinicians and policy makers. Therefore, it is critical that developers are transparent and forthcoming about the difficulties that have arisen during the CPG development process.

A Mobile Phone-Based Intervention to Reduce Mental Health Problems in Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PsyCovidApp): Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The global health emergency generated by the COVID-19 pandemic is posing an unprecedented challenge to health care workers, who are facing heavy workloads under psychologically difficult situations. Mental mobile Health (mHealth) interventions are now being widely deployed due to their attractive implementation features, despite the lack of evidence about their efficacy in this specific population and context. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a psychoeducational, mindfulness-based mHealth intervention to reduce mental health problems in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a blinded, parallel-group, controlled trial in Spain. Health care workers providing face-to-face health care to patients with COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention (an app targeting emotional skills, healthy lifestyle behavior, burnout, and social support) or a control app (general recommendations about mental health care) for 2 weeks. The participants were blinded to their group allocation. Data were collected telephonically at baseline and after 2 weeks by trained health psychologists. The primary outcome was a composite of depression, anxiety, and stress (overall score on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 [DASS-21]). Secondary outcomes were insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index), burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey), posttraumatic stress (Davidson Trauma Scale), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale), and DASS-21 individual scale scores. Differences between groups were analyzed using general linear modeling according to an intention-to-treat protocol. Additionally, we measured the usability of the PsyCovidApp (System Usability Scale). The outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of the treatment allocation. RESULTS: Between May 14 and July 25, 2020, 482 health care workers were recruited and randomly assigned to PsyCovidApp (n=248) or the control app (n=234). At 2 weeks, complete outcome data were available for 436/482 participants (90.5%). No significant differences were observed between the groups at 2 weeks in the primary outcome (standardized mean difference -0.04; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.04; P=.15) or in the other outcomes. In our prespecified subgroup analyses, we observed significant improvements among health care workers consuming psychotropic medications (n=79) in the primary outcome (-0.29; 95% CI -0.48 to -0.09; P=.004), and in posttraumatic stress, insomnia, anxiety, and stress. Similarly, among health care workers receiving psychotherapy (n=43), we observed improvements in the primary outcome (-0.25; 95% CI -0.49 to -0.02; P=.02), and in insomnia, anxiety, and stress. The mean usability score of PsyCovidApp was high (87.21/100, SD 12.65). After the trial, 208/221 participants in the intervention group (94.1%) asked to regain access to PsyCovidApp, indicating high acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: In health care workers assisting patients with COVID-19 in Spain, PsyCovidApp, compared with a control app, reduced mental health problems at 2 weeks only among health care workers receiving psychotherapy or psychotropic medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04393818; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04393818.

Effect of a mobile-based intervention on mental health in frontline healthcare workers against COVID-19: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of a psychoeducational, mobile health intervention based on cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness-based approaches on the mental health of healthcare workers at the frontline against COVID-19 in Spain. DESIGN: We will carry out a two-week, individually randomized, parallel group, controlled trial. Participants will be individually randomized to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention or control App intervention. METHODS: The PsyCovidApp intervention will include five modules: emotional skills, lifestyle behaviour, work stress and burnout, social support, and practical tools. Healthcare workers having attended patients with COVID-19 will be randomized to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention (intervention group) or a control App intervention (control group). A total of 440 healthcare workers will be necessary to assure statistical power. Measures will be collected telephonically by a team of psychologists at baseline and immediately after the 2 weeks intervention period. Measures will include stress, depression and anxiety (DASS-21 questionnaire-primary endpoint), insomnia (ISI), burnout (MBI-HSS), post-traumatic stress disorder (DTS), and self-efficacy (GSE). The study was funded in May 2020, and was ethically approved in June 2020. Trial participants, outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded to group allocation. DISCUSSION: Despite the increasing use of mobile health interventions to deliver mental health care, this area of research is still on its infancy. This study will help increase the scientific evidence about the effectiveness of this type of intervention on this specific population and context. IMPACT: Despite the lack of solid evidence about their effectiveness, mobile-based health interventions are already being widely implemented because of their low cost and high scalability. The findings from this study will help health services and organizations to make informed decisions in relation to the development and implementation of this type of interventions, allowing them pondering not only their attractive implementability features, but also empirical data about its benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04393818 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). APPROVED FUNDING: May 2020.

Using GRADE in situations of emergencies and urgencies: certainty in evidence and recommendations matters during the COVID-19 pandemic, now more than ever and no matter what.

OBJECTIVES: The public, policy makers, and science communities are subject to many false, uninformed, overly optimistic, premature, or simply ridiculous health claims. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its context is a paramount example for such claims. In this article, we describe why expressing the certainty in evidence to support a decision is critical and why the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach matters now, perhaps more than ever and no matter what the specific topic is in relation to COVID-19. We finally also offer suggestions for how it can be used appropriately to support decision-making at global, national, and local level when emergency, urgent or rapid responses are needed. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is an invited commentary to address the objectives above building on examples from the recent COVID-19 pandemic. This includes an iterative discussion of examples and development of guidance. RESULTS: The GRADE approach is a transparent and structured method for assessing the certainty of evidence and when developing recommendations that requires little additional time. We describe why emergency, urgent, or rapid responses do not justify omitting this critical assessment of the evidence. In situations of emergencies and urgencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, GRADE can similarly be used to express and convey certainty in intervention effects, test accuracy, risk and prognostic factors, consequences of public health measures, and qualitative bodies of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing and communicating the certainty of evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic is critical. Those offering evidence synthesis or making recommendations should use transparent ratings of the body of evidence supporting a claim regardless of time that is available or needed to provide this response.

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. METHODS: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. RESULTS: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.