The use of angiotensin II for the management of distributive shock: expert consensus statements.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing body of evidence supporting the use of angiotensin II (ATII) in distributive shock, its integration into existing treatment algorithms requires careful consideration of factors related to patient comorbidities, hemodynamic parameters, cost-effectiveness, and risk-benefit balance. Moreover, several questions regarding its use in clinical practice warrant further investigations. To address these challenges, a group of Italian intensive care specialists (the panel) developed a consensus process using a modified Delphi technique. METHODS: The panel defined five clinical questions during an online scoping workshop and then provided a short list of statements related to each clinical question based on literature review and clinical experience. A total of 20 statements were collected. Two coordinators screened and selected the final list of statements to be included in the online survey, which consisted of 17 statements. The consensus was reached when ≥ 75% of respondents assigned a score within the 3-point range of 1-3 (disagreement) or 7-9 (agreement). RESULTS: Overall, a consensus on agreement was reached on 13 statements defining the existing gaps in scientific evidence, the possibility of evaluating the addition of drugs with different mechanisms of action for the treatment of refractory shock, the utility of ATII in reducing the catecholamine requirements in the treatment of vasopressor-resistant septic shock, and the effectiveness of ATII in treating patients in whom angiotensin-converting enzyme activity is reduced or pharmacologically blocked. It was widely shared that renin concentration can be used to identify patients who most likely benefit from ATII to restore vascular tone. Thus, the patients who might benefit most from using ATII were defined. Lastly, some potential barriers to the use of ATII were described. CONCLUSIONS: ATII was recognized as a useful treatment to reduce catecholamine requirements in treating vasopressor-resistant septic shock. At the same time, the need for additional clinical trials to further elucidate the efficacy and safety of ATII, as well as investigations into potential mechanisms of action and optimization of treatment protocols in patients with refractory distributive shock, emerged.

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.

Indian consensus on the managemeNt of carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales infection in critically ill patients II (ICONIC II).

INTRODUCTION: The rising challenge of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) infections in Indian healthcare settings calls for clear clinical guidance on the management of these infections. The Indian consensus on the management of CRE infection in critically ill patients (ICONIC-II) is a follow-up of the ICONIC-I study, which was undertaken in 2019. AREAS COVERED: A modified Delphi method was used to build expert consensus on CRE management in India, involving online surveys, face-to - face expert meetings, and a literature review. A panel of 12 experts was formed to develop potential clinical consensus statements (CCSs), which were rated through two survey rounds. The CCSs were finalized in a final face-to - face discussion. The finalized CCSs were categorized as consensus, near consensus, and no consensus. EXPERT OPINION: The outcomes included 46 CCSs (consensus: 40; near consensus: 3; and no consensus: 3). The expert panel discussed and achieved consensus on various strategies for managing CRE infections, emphasizing the significance of existing and emerging resistance mechanisms, prompt and tailored empiric therapy, and use of combination therapies. The consensus statements based on the collective expertise of the panel can potentially assist clinicians in the management of CRE infections that lack high-level evidence.

Addressing the psychosocial aspects of transition to adult care in patients with cystinosis.

Cystinosis is a rare autosomal-recessive lysosomal storage disease that progressively affects multiple organs beginning with the kidneys. Patients require lifelong multidisciplinary care for the management of kidney disease and progressive extra-renal manifestations, and thus, they are especially fragile and vulnerable during transition from pediatric to adult care. Previous documents have provided guidance to help the medical transition of these highly burdened patients. Patients and their families often experience great psychological distress and face significant social challenges; for these reasons, they often need help from psychologists, social workers, and other psychosocial professionals. Due to the rarity of the disease, most psychosocial professionals have no expertise in this disorder and require advice. To this end, a steering committee (SC) composed of six experts, including pediatric nephrologists, psychologists, and social workers with experience in the care for patients with cystinosis, have identified and addressed seven key questions related to psychosocial challenges of the disease and the burden of treatment. Ten additional international experts (the extended faculty, EF) were invited to answer these questions. Since robust evidence is lacking, as in many rare diseases, conclusions were based on collective agreement between members of the SC and the EF, and the consolidated answers were summarized into expert opinion statements. The present document contains information on the concerns and psychosocial burden of patients with cystinosis and of their caregivers, and provides practical advice for timely and appropriate support to facilitate the transition to adult care.

Acute Treatment of Migraine: Expert Consensus Statements from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

INTRODUCTION: Migraine, characterized by recurrent headaches and often accompanied by other symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and sound, significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL) and daily functioning. The global burden of migraines is reflected not only in terms of reduced QoL but also in the form of increased healthcare costs and missed work or school days. While UAE (United Arab Emirates)-specific consensus-based recommendations for the effective use of preventive calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-based migraine therapies have been published previously, an absence of such regional guidance on the management of acute migraine represents a gap that needs to be urgently addressed. METHODS: A task force of eight neurologists from the UAE with expertise in migraine management conducted a comprehensive literature search and developed a set of expert statements on the management of acute migraine that were specific to the UAE context. To ensure diverse perspectives are considered, a Delphi panel comprising 16 neurologists plus the task force members was set up. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi survey method. Consensus was predefined as a median rating of 7 or higher without discordance (if > 25% of the Delphi panelists rate an expert statement as 3 or lower on the Likert scale). Expert statements achieving consensus were adopted. RESULTS: The Modified Delphi method was used successfully to achieve consensus on all nine expert statements drafted by the task force. These consensus statements aim to provide a comprehensive guide for UAE healthcare professionals in treating acute migraine. The statements cover all aspects of acute migraine treatment, including what goals to set, the timing of treatment, treatment strategy to use in case of inadequate response to triptans, safety aspects of combining gepants for acute attacks with preventive CGRP-based therapies, special population (pregnant and pediatric patients) considerations, and the management of the most bothersome symptoms (MBS). CONCLUSIONS: Adopting these consensus statements on the treatment of acute migraine can help enhance patient care, improve outcomes, and standardize treatment practices in the UAE. The collaborative effort of experts with diverse experiences in developing these consensus statements will strengthen the credibility and applicability of these statements to various healthcare settings in the country.

Evaluation and systematic review of guidance documents for status epilepticus.

Guidance documents play a pivotal role in shaping the management of status epilepticus (SE). However, the methodological quality of these documents remains uncertain. In this systematic review, we comprehensively searched 12 literature and guideline databases to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements related to SE management using the AGREE II methodology. Additionally, we summarized the associated recommendations. We identified a total of 14 clinical practice guidelines and 11 consensus statements spanning the period from 1993 to 2022. The median score for clarity of presentation was 71.8% (ranging from 15.3% to 91.7%), indicating generally good clarity. However, the aspect of editorial independence received poor ratings, with a median score of 32.1% (ranging from 0% to 83.3%). Notably, the 2016 guideline published by the American Epilepsy Society in Epilepsy (AES) received the highest overall scores. Across these guidance documents, there was consistency in the definition and diagnosis of SE. However, significant variability was observed in therapeutic recommendations, particularly in terms of the timing for adding or changing medications. The methodological approaches used in most SE guidance documents require improvement, and the disparities in recommendations highlight existing gaps in evidence. Enhanced methodological rigor results in increased standardization of the guideline, consequently augmenting its reference value. Given the urgency of SE as an emergency condition, it is imperative that these documents also address relevant management strategies before admission.

Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the delivery of health care is a promising area, and guidelines, consensus statements, and standards on AI regarding various topics have been developed. OBJECTIVE: We performed this study to assess the quality of guidelines, consensus statements, and standards in the field of AI for medicine and to provide a foundation for recommendations about the future development of AI guidelines. METHODS: We searched 7 electronic databases from database establishment to April 6, 2022, and screened articles involving AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards for eligibility. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) tools were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included articles. RESULTS: This systematic review included 19 guideline articles, 14 consensus statement articles, and 3 standard articles published between 2019 and 2022. Their content involved disease screening, diagnosis, and treatment; AI intervention trial reporting; AI imaging development and collaboration; AI data application; and AI ethics governance and applications. Our quality assessment revealed that the average overall AGREE II score was 4.0 (range 2.2-5.5; 7-point Likert scale) and the mean overall reporting rate of the RIGHT tool was 49.4% (range 25.7%-77.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated important differences in the quality of different AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards. We made recommendations for improving their methodological and reporting quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022321360); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=321360.

Protocol for Development of American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements: Summary of Methodology, Process, and Policy - 2023 Update.

OBJECTIVE: This 2023 updated protocol summarizes the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology's (AACE's) new framework for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other guidance documents that includes changes to methodology, processes, and policies. METHODS: AACE has critically reviewed its development processes for guidance documents over the last several years against the National Academy of Medicine Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies Principles for Development of Specialty Society Clinical Guidelines to determine areas for improvement. RESULTS: The new AACE framework for development of guidance documents incorporates many changes, including a revised conflicts of interest (COI) policy; strengthened commitment to collection of disclosures and management of relevant COI during development; open calls to membership for authors; new requirements for authors; new diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy; new empanelment process that incorporates consideration of DEI; and adoption of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to increase the quality of evidence assessment and standardize recommendation grades and statements, among other improvements. CONCLUSIONS: AACE has revised its policies and adopted a completely new methodology for guideline development in support of the mission to elevate the practice of clinical endocrinology to improve patient care. With the use of an evidence-based medicine framework and by continually assessing and improving its processes for development of guidance, AACE strives to deliver trustworthy, unbiased, and up-to-date information that ensures clinician and patient confidence in AACE content. Further, AACE hopes that these enhancements foster a more collaborative approach to development and increase engagement with the worldwide medical community to improve global health.

Failure of Guidelines and Consensus Statements to Recommend Follow-up for Chronic Cardiovascular Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Many cardiac conditions require long-term clinical follow-up to monitor progression of disease and tolerance and adherence to therapies. Providers are often unsure as to the frequency of clinical follow-up and who should provide the follow-up. In the absence of formal guidance, patients may be seen more frequently than necessary - thereby limiting clinic space for other patients, or not frequently enough, potentially leading to undetected progression of disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which guidelines (GL)/consensus statements (CS) provide guidance about appropriate follow-up for common cardiovascular conditions. METHODS: We identified 31 chronic cardiovascular disease conditions for which long-term (beyond 1 year) follow-up is indicated and used PubMed and professional society websites to identify all relevant GL/CS (n = 33) regarding these chronic cardiac conditions. RESULTS: Of the 31 cardiac conditions reviewed, GL/CS contained no recommendation or vague recommendation for long-term follow-up for 7 of the conditions. Of the 24 conditions with recommendations for follow-up, 3 had recommendations for imaging follow-up only without mention of clinical follow-up. Of the 33 GL/CS reviewed, 17 made any recommendations about long-term follow-up. When recommendations were made regarding follow-up, they were often vague, using terminology such as "as needed". CONCLUSIONS: Half of GL/CS fail to provide recommendations for clinical follow-up of common cardiovascular conditions. Writing groups for GL/CS should adopt a standard of routinely including recommendations for follow-up including specific advice about level of expertise needed (eg, primary care physician, cardiologist), need for imaging or testing, and frequency of follow-up.

Quality and clinical applicability of recommendations for incontinence-associated dermatitis: A systematic review of guidelines and consensus statements.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess methodological quality of all currently available guidelines and consensus statements for IAD using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the AGREE Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX) instruments. BACKGROUND: Globally, incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a significant health challenge. IAD is a complex healthcare problem that reduces quality of life of patients, increases healthcare costs and prolongs hospital stays. Several guidelines and consensus statements are available for IAD. However, the quality of these guidelines and consensus statements remains unclear. DESIGN: A systematic review of guidelines and consensus statements. METHODS: Our study was undertaken using PRISMA guidelines. We searched seven electronic databases. Guidelines and consensus statements had to be published in English, Chinese or German languages. Five independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of guidelines and consensus statements using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Mean with standard deviation (SD) and median with interquartile range (IQR) were calculated for descriptive analyses. We generated bubble plots to describe the assessment results of each domain of each guideline and consensus statement. RESULTS: We included ten guidelines and consensus statements. The NICE guidelines, obtained the highest scores, fulfilled 86.11%-98.61% of criteria in AGREE II and 76.67%-91.11% for AGREE-REX. In the domains 'Stakeholder Involvement' (4.39 ± 1.64), 'Rigor of Development' (3.38 ± 1.86), 'Applicability' (3.62 ± 1.64), 'Editorial Independence' (3.91 ± 2.56) and 'Values and Preferences' (2.98 ± 1.41), the remaining guidelines and consensus statements showed deficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, this study demonstrated that the currently available guidelines and consensus statements for IAD have room for methodological improvement. NICE guidelines on faecal incontinence and urinary incontinence have better quality. Remaining guidelines and consensus statements showed substantial methodological weaknesses, especially the domains of 'Stakeholder Involvement', 'Rigor of Development', 'Applicability', 'Editorial independence' and 'Values and Preferences'. This study was registered on INPLASY. (Registration number: INPLASY202190078). RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The currently available guidelines and consensus statements on IAD have room for methodological improvement.

Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.

BACKGROUND: Guidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. METHODS: A search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus. RESULTS: Overall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title ('guideline' vs 'consensus statement'/ 'recommendations') did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance.

Expert guidance on the multidisciplinary management of cystinosis in adolescent and adult patients.

Cystinosis, a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder, results in an abnormal accumulation of the amino acid cystine in multiple organs and tissues of the body. Renal symptoms typically develop in the first few months of life, with extra-renal manifestations becoming apparent over the next 10-20 years, which require coordinated multidisciplinary care. Here, we describe a consensus-based guidance to support the management of adolescents and adults living with cystinosis. The programme was led by a Steering Committee (SC) of six experts in the management of patients with cystinosis, who identified a list of 15 key questions reflecting the multi-organ effects of cystinosis. An Extended Faculty (EF) of eight additional specialists was invited to answer the questions via an online digital platform using a quasi-Delphi approach. The consolidated answers were summarized into recommendations. Where evidence was lacking, recommendations were developed using collective expert consensus. The EF was asked to agree/disagree with the clinical recommendations. The expert-agreed clinical recommendations provide guidance that considers both renal and extra-renal systems. The topics covered are advice on fertility and family planning, consideration of the nervous, muscular, ophthalmic, cardio-respiratory, endocrine, dermatological and gastrointestinal systems, as well as guidance on dental care, diet, lifestyle, and improving quality of life and psychological well-being. In summary, this work outlines recommendations and a checklist for clinicians with a vision for improving and standardizing the multidisciplinary care for patients with cystinosis.

Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment.

AIM: Evidence-based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high-quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CPGs and CSs. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and online sources (59 professional society websites and eight guideline databases) were systematically searched following prospective registration (PROSPERO no. CRD42021286146) by two reviewers independently, without language restrictions. CPGs and CSs about CRC and anal cancer treatment were included from January 2018 to November 2021 and were assessed using the AGREE II tool (per cent of maximum score) and the RIGHT tool (per cent of total 35 items) for quality and reporting respectively. RESULTS: The median overall quality and reporting of the 59 guidelines analysed were 55.0% (interquartile range 47.0-62.0) and 58% (interquartile range 50.0-67.9), respectively, with a proportion scoring less than half (<50%) for quality (20/59, 33.9%) and reporting (15/59, 25.4%). Guidance reported that following AGREE II methodology scored better on average than that without (AGREE II 77.7% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 50.0% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.001). Guidelines based on systematic reviews had better quality and reporting on average than those based on consensus (AGREE II 56.5% vs. 46.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 36.9% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: The quality and reporting of colorectal and anal cancer treatment CPGs and CSs were poor. Despite AGREE II and RIGHT inherent methodological limitations, few high-quality guidelines were found. Despite wide variability in scoring different domains, they merit urgent improvement in all areas. It has also been demonstrated that CPGs and CSs should be underpinned by systematic reviews collecting the best available clinical research findings.

Clinical practice guidelines for oral health care during pregnancy: a systematic evaluation and summary recommendations for general dental practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and summarize clinical practice guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of dental diseases during pregnancy, and to provide summary recommendations for general dental practitioners involved in the dental care of pregnant women. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Using keywords related to prenatal dental care in combination with guidelines or consensus statements, online databases, websites of professional organizations, and evidence-based practice platforms were searched. Published guidelines or consensus statements that met the inclusion criteria were selected and evaluated with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE-II) tool. Key recommendations were summarized and assessed for consistency across the guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 15 guidelines or consensus statement documents for oral health care during pregnancy were found after the initial search, of which 7 documents met the inclusion criteria; these were analyzed with AGREE-II. These guidelines were developed by expert panels and consensus meetings after comprehensive review of the best available evidence, and consistently deliver clear messages that preventive, diagnostic, restorative, and periodontal procedures and tooth extractions are safe throughout pregnancy and effective in improving and maintaining the oral health of mothers and their children. Dental diseases should be treated in a timely manner and dental emergency treatments can be provided at any time during pregnancy. Dental examination and prophylaxis should be conducted every 6 months to maintain the oral health of pregnant women. CONCLUSION: Published clinical guidelines are consistent in delivering clear messages and providing guidance to dental practitioners for timely and effective dental care during pregnancy. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of oral diseases are safe throughout the pregnancy.

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy.

CONTEXT: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).

Australian Consensus Statements for the Assessment and Management of Non-radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The understanding of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) has accelerated over the last decade, producing a number of practice-changing developments. Diagnosis is challenging. No diagnostic criteria exist, no single finding is diagnostic, and other causes of back pain may act as confounders. AIM: To update and expand the 2014 consensus statement on the investigation and management of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). METHODS: We created search questions based on our previous statements and four new topics then searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. We assessed relevant publications by full-text review and rated their level of evidence using the GRADE system. We compiled a GRADE evidence summary then produced and voted on consensus statements. RESULTS: We identified 5145 relevant publications, full-text reviewed 504, and included 176 in the evidence summary. We developed and voted on 22 consensus statements. All had high agreement. Diagnosis of nr-axSpA should be made by experienced clinicians, considering clinical features of spondyloarthritis, blood tests, and imaging. History and examination should also assess alternative causes of back pain and related conditions including non-specific back pain and fibromyalgia. Initial investigations should include CRP, HLA-B27, and AP pelvic radiography. Further imaging by T1 and STIR MRI of the sacroiliac joints is useful if radiography does not show definite changes. MRI provides moderate-to-high sensitivity and high specificity for nr-axSpA. Acute signs of sacroiliitis on MRI are not specific and have been observed in the absence of spondyloarthritis. Initial management should involve NSAIDs and a regular exercise program, while TNF and IL-17 inhibitors can be used for high disease activity unresponsive to these interventions. Goals of treatment include improving the frequent impairment of social and occupational function that occurs in nr-axSpA. CONCLUSIONS: We provide 22 evidence-based consensus statements to provide practical guidance in the assessment and management of nr-axSpA.

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting. METHODS: A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following prospective registration (Prospero no.: CRD42020203807). AGREE II (% of maximum score) and RIGHT (% of total 35 items) appraised quality and reporting individually, extracting data in duplicate; reviewer agreement was 98% and 93%, respectively. RESULTS: Forty guidances with median overall quality and reporting 51% (interquartile range [IQR] 39-63) and 48% (IQR 35-65), respectively. Twenty-two (55%) and 20 (50%) did not reach the minimum standards (scores <50%). The guidances that deployed systematic reviews had better quality (74.2% vs. 46.9%; p = 0.001) and reporting (80.5% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Guidances reporting a tool referral scored better (AGREE II: 72.8% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.002; RIGHT: 75.0% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: BC screening CPGs and CSs suffered poor quality and reporting. More than half did not reach the minimum standards. They would improve if systematic reviews were used to underpin the recommendations made.

Supporting Consensus Statements: Considerations and Recommendations for a Systematic Review Service.

Increasingly, a critical eye has been placed on the methodological quality of consensus statements. As expert systematic review (SR) methodologists, librarians are often called on to support consensus statement work. Using the Weill Cornell Medicine Samuel J. Wood Library's SR Service experience as a guide, the aim of this paper is to answer three main questions regarding librarians supporting consensus statement work: (1) What is a consensus statement? (2) What is consensus statement methodology and how does this compare to practice guidelines? (3) What are important and practical points to consider when supporting this kind of request?

Toward Complete, Candid, and Unbiased International Consensus Statements on Concussion in Sport.

Five international consensus statements on concussion in sports have been published. This commentary argues that there is a strong need for a new approach to them that foregrounds public health expertise and patient-centered guidance. Doing so will help players, parents and practitioners keep perspective about these potentially life-altering injuries especially when they recur.