RESUMO
Background: Updating evidence-based clinical practice guidelines is an onerous process and there is a call for more efficient determination of key questions that need updating. Especially for surgical techniques it is unclear if new evidence will result in substantial changes after wide implementation and if continuous updating is always necessary. Objectives: This study analyses the impact of updating a surgical guideline and proposes suggestions for optimising this process. Materials and methods: The Dutch Minimally Invasive Surgery guideline was developed in 2011 and updated in 2021. For both versions a multidisciplinary guideline working group (GDG) was created, that determined key questions. Changes in conclusions and recommendations were analysed by the GDG and statements for expected change of recommendations in the future were made. Results: 15 key questions were formed, of which 12 were updates of the previous guideline. For only 27% of the updated key questions, the conclusions changed. In ten years, the body grew only marginally for most key questions and quality of the evidence did not improve substantially for almost all key questions. However, in this first update of the MIC guideline, many recommendations did change due to a more robust interpretation of the conclusions by the GDG. Based on analysis of this updating process, the GDG expects that only four out of 15 recommendations may change in the future. Conclusion: We propose an additional step at the end of guideline development and updating, where the necessity for updating in the future is determined for each key question by the GDG, using their valuable knowledge gained from developing or updating the guideline. For surgical guidelines, the authors suggest updating key issues if it includes a relatively newly introduced surgical- or adapted technique or a new patient group. Low quality or small body of evidence should not be a reason in itself for updating, as this mostly does not lead to new evidence-based conclusions. This new step is expected to result in a more efficient prioritising of key questions that need updating. What's new?: By adding one additional step at the end of the updating process, the future updating process could become more efficient.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: As bladder distension related to anaesthesia puts patients at risk for permanent dysfunction, peri-operative determination of bladder volume is of great importance. The aim of this study is to validate an ultrasonic imaging device for determing bladder urine volume. METHOD: To evaluate a broad volume range, ultrasonically scanned volumes were compared to true urinary volumes both in surgical patients and in volunteers. After institutional approval and informed consent 60 healthy volunteers were asked not to void for as long as possible. After ultrasound measurements (BladderScan BVI 2500, Diagnostic Ultrasound, Redmond WA, U.S.A.) they voided and true urinary volumes were measured. Fifty surgical patients scheduled for procedures requiring urinary catheterisation were studied. Pre- and post-induction of anaesthesia ultrasound measurements were recorded, followed by urinary catheterisation and measurement of true urinary volume. Urine volumes were compared using Student t-tests and Wilcoxon Rank Tests (p < 0.05). For validation linear regression was used together with Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Ultrasonic scanning underestimated the true urine volume by about 7% over the whole volume range (17 ml to 970 ml). Underestimation was larger in females than in males (p < 0.02). R2 values for correlation of measured and scanned urinary volumes ranged between 0.92 and 0.95. Bland and Altman analyses showed a bias of 31 ml in volunteers and of 19 ml in patients and a precision of 110 ml and 80 ml, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasonic imaging device can be used peri-operatively to establish bladder volume, taking into account the 7% underestimation of the bladder volume.
