Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in updating clinical guidelines is to efficiently identify new, relevant evidence. We evaluated the efficiency and feasibility of two new approaches: the development of restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries for MEDLINE and the use of the PLUS (McMaster Premium Literature Service) database. METHODS: We evaluated a random sample of recommendations from a national guideline development program and identified the references that would potentially trigger an update (key references) using an exhaustive approach. We designed restrictive search strategies using the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive search strategies and applying broad and narrow filters. We developed PLUS search strategies, matching Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) terms with guideline topics. We compared the number of key references retrieved by these approaches with those retrieved by the exhaustive approach. RESULTS: The restrictive approach retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (12,486 versus 39,136), and identified 89.9 % (62/69) of key references and 88 % (22/25) of recommendation updates. The use of PLUS retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (4,486 versus 39,136) and identified substantially fewer key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and fewer recommendation updates (10/25, 40 %). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed restrictive approach is a highly efficient and feasible method to identify new evidence that triggers a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database proved to be a suboptimal approach and suggests the need for topic-specific tailoring.

The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library; reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and requests to authors and experts in the field). RESULTS: Out of 1,861 identified references published between 1978 and 2007, 34 articles corresponding to 28 original studies proved eligible. Most trials (19) were conducted in primary care settings performed in the USA (21) and assessed adult patients (25). Information provided to professionals included generic health status (10), mental health (14), and other (6). Most studies suffered from methodologic limitations, including analysis that did not correspond with the unit of allocation. In most trials, the impact of PRO was limited. Fifteen of 23 studies (65%) measuring process of care observed at least one significant result favoring the intervention, as did eight of 17 (47%) that measured outcomes of care. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological concerns limit the strength of inference regarding the impact of providing PRO information to clinicians. Results suggest great heterogeneity of impact; contexts and interventions that will yield important benefits remain to be clearly defined.