Viewpoint

A vision statement on guideline development for respiratory disease: the example of COPD

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was developed to assess the certainty (or quality) of evidence and strength of recommendations in guidelines and endorsed internationally as a standard. Some guidelines had been developed to promote pressure injury prevention.

We explored whether and to what extent the development of pressure injury prevention guidelines had followed or been informed by the GRADE approach. If this approach was not used, we examined which other methods were used instead.

A cross-sectional study of pressure injury prevention guidelines was conducted. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Chinese databases as well as guideline repositories and websites of professional bodies were searched for guidelines from 1990 to 2020. The grading systems of the certainty (or quality) of evidence and strength of recommendations of included guidelines were extracted. For the GRADE approach guidelines, compliance was assessed with the GRADE application criteria.

Twenty guidelines were identified. Among them, four guidelines (20%) indicated the use of the GRADE approach. The compliance rate ranged from 33.3%–94.4%. Other approaches, such as the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) approach, were also used.

The GRADE approach is rarely followed and inconsistently applied in pressure injury prevention guidelines. Other systems, such as the SIGN approach, are being used despite being outdated or inconsistent. Strategies for further uptake and appropriate application of the GRADE approach among guideline developers are needed in the future.

Clinicians, patients, policy makers, funders, programme managers, regulators, and science communities invest considerable amounts of time and energy in influencing or making decisions at various levels, using systematic reviews, health technology assessments, guideline recommendations, coverage decisions, selection of essential medicines and diagnostics, quality assurance and improvement schemes, and policy and evidence briefs. The criteria and methods that these actors use in their work differ (eg, the role economic analysis has in decision making), but these methods frequently overlap and exist together. Under the aegis of WHO, we have brought together representatives of different areas to reconcile how the evidence that influences decisions is used across multiple health system decision levels. We describe the overlap and differences in decision-making criteria between different actors in the health sector to provide bridging opportunities through a unifying broad framework that we call theory of everything. Although decision-making activities respond to system needs, processes are often poorly coordinated, both globally and on a country level. A decision made in isolation from other decisions on the same topic could cause misleading, unnecessary, or conflicted inputs to the health system and, therefore, confusion and resource waste.

To establish what GIN guideline community members see as the desirable features of a guidelines library and registry of guidelines in development

An explorative mixed-methods study was undertaken, including scoping activity and semi-structured interviews with guideline developers and endorsers from nine member organizations of the Guidelines International Network.

A small number of desirable features of a guideline library were identified: comprehensiveness; single source of information to avoid searching multiple sites; inclusion of related materials; being up to date; searchability and ease of use. No existing library of guidelines was considered to have all of these features. A number of issues arose out of the desire to have a comprehensive library of guidelines, including inclusion of ‘high quality guidelines’ and limiting the scope to include only national guidelines. For registries of guidelines in development, the data set should be limited to avoid placing undue burden on those entering information.

Our findings identify ongoing issues for the guideline community, including the tension between comprehensiveness and ease of use, which can result in limited uptake, reporting of guideline quality and the need for clarity on the purpose of any library or registry.

Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included.

An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved.

The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination.

Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay.

Guidelines are critical for facilitating cost-effective COPD care. Development and implementation in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging. To guide future strategy, an overview of current global COPD guidelines is required.

We systematically reviewed national COPD guidelines, focusing on worldwide availability and identification of potential development, content, context, and quality gaps that may hamper effective implementation.

Scoping review of national COPD management guidelines. We assessed: (1) global guideline coverage; (2) guideline information (authors, target audience, dissemination plans); (3) content (prevention, diagnosis, treatments); (4) ethical, legal, and socio-economic aspects; and (5) compliance with the eight Institute of Medicine (IOM) guideline standards. LMICs guidelines were compared with those from high-income countries (HICs).

Of the 61 national COPD guidelines identified, 30 were from LMICs. Guidelines did not cover 1.93 billion (30.2%) people living in LMICs, whereas only 0.02 billion (1.9%) in HICs were without national guidelines. Compared with HICs, LMIC guidelines targeted fewer health-care professional groups and less often addressed case finding and co-morbidities. More than 90% of all guidelines included smoking cessation advice. Air pollution reduction strategies were less frequently mentioned in both LMICs (47%) and HICs (42%). LMIC guidelines fulfilled on average 3.37 (42%) of IOM standards, compared with 5.29 (66%) in HICs (P < .05). LMICs scored significantly lower compared with HICs regarding conflicts of interest management, updates, articulation of recommendations, and funding transparency (all, P < .05).

Several development, content, context, and quality gaps exist in COPD guidelines from LMICs that may hamper effective implementation. Overall, COPD guidelines in LMICs should be more widely available and should be transparently developed and updated. Guidelines may be further enhanced by better inclusion of local risk factors, case findings, and co-morbidity management, preferably tailored to available financial and staff resources.

We assessed whether guidelines published by organizations based in the United States comply with published criteria for the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

We performed a cross-sectional study of all clinical practice guidelines that indicated the use of the GRADE approach, were published between 2011 and 2018, and listed in the National Guidelines Clearinghouse.

We included 67 guideline documents from 44 of 135 (32.6%) US-based organizations that indicated the use of the GRADE approach. The majority (60/67, 89.6%) of guidelines defined the certainty of evidence consistent with GRADE, but only approximately 1 in 10 (7/67, 10.4%) explicitly reported consideration of all eight criteria to assess the certainty in the evidence for rating down and up. A majority of guidelines (36/67, 53.7%) provided a summary of the evidence, described explicit consideration of all four central domains (36/67, 53.7%), and rated the strength of recommendation consistent with GRADE (36/67, 53.7%).

Approximately one in three US-based organizations developing evidence-based guidelines report the use of GRADE, but adherence to published criteria is inconsistent. As uptake of the GRADE approach increases in the United States, continued efforts to train guideline methodologists and panel members are important.