Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

The life and death of living systematic reviews: a methodological survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to describe the characteristics of living systematic reviews (LSRs) and to understand their life cycles. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a comprehensive search up to April 2021 then selected articles and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We undertook descriptive analyses and calculated delay in version update and delay since the last published version. RESULTS: We included 76 eligible LSRs with a total of 279 eligible versions. The majority of LSRs was from the clinical field (70%), was COVID-19 related (63%), and had a funding source specified (62%). The median number of versions per LSR was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-4; range 1-19). The median and IQR for the ratio of the actual period of update to the planned period of update was 1.12 (0.81; 1.71). Out of all reviews with a 'planned period of update' and at least one update (N = 19), eight LSRs (42%) had a period since last published version greater than 3 times the planned period of update. No LSR included a 'retirement notice' in their latest published version. CONCLUSION: While most LSR complied with the planned period of producing updates, a substantive proportion lagged since their last update.

Testing guidelines during times of crisis: challenges and limitations of developing rapid and living guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The start of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a situation in which there was an urgent need for decision-making that relates to diagnosis, but the evidence was lacking, of low certainty or constantly changing. Rapid and living guideline development methods were needed and had to be applied to rigorous guideline approaches, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. OBJECTIVES: To describe the process of developing rapid diagnosis guidelines when there is limited and imperfect available data at the time of crisis. SOURCES: Case example from four Infectious Disease Society of America COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines. CONTENT: As the world was experiencing panic with COVID-19, there were serious doubts about the feasibility of following a rigorous process for guideline development when timeliness was of extreme value. The Infectious Disease Society of America guideline panels supported by several methodologists strongly believed that at times of crisis, it is more important than ever to follow a rigorous process. The panel adopted a rapid and living systematic review methodology and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to four diagnosis guidelines despite the challenges of scarce and dynamic evidence. We describe the methodological details of the rapid and living approach (data extraction, meta-analysis, Evidence to Decision framework, and recommendation development), the challenge of resources, the challenge of scarce evidence, the challenge of rapidly changing evidence, as well as 'wins' from the Infectious Disease Society of America experience. IMPLICATIONS: Mitigation of pandemics relies on rapid and accurate diagnosis, which is challenged by many knowledge gaps. This necessitates emerging evidence is rapidly incorporated in a living fashion with several decisional and contextual factors to ensure the best public health strategies and care for patients. This process must be systematic and transparent for developing trustworthy guidelines and should be supported by all stakeholders, including researchers, editors, publishers, professional societies, and policymakers.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through April 1, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel made ten diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared to nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms, and in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In contrast, Ag tests have high specificity, and, in most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared to testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remains the testing method of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.