Objective To calculate the typical time taken to complete protocols and reviews, to track how often reviews are updated and compare with Collaboration policies, to feed back any gaps in documentation of dates to individual Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups, and to suggest changes to presentation of reviews and to editorial processes.Methods Data were extracted either from The Cochrane Library or a specially constructed database to calculate the age of reviews and protocols, and the frequency of updating of reviews. Issue 1, 2003, with 1 596 reviews and 1 200 protocols, was used as the index issue.Results Median number of issues between a protocol and its completed review being published on The Cochrane Library is 5 (1.25 years). 65% of protocols have appeared on The Cochrane Library for no longer than two years, but the number of protocols more than two years old is probably increasing. One-third of reviews have been substantively updated, but generally only once and often within several months of the first publication of the review. The number of out-of-date reviews is probably increasing. Conclusions While the stage between publishing a protocol and the completed review is usually completed in no longer than two years, the number of out-of-date reviews and protocols requires continuing attention. How up-to-date a review is depends on when the evidence base was last searched and when additional relevant evidence has been integrated into the review. This needs to be reflected in the information provided to readers of Cochrane Reviews and some alternative ways of presenting the components of this information are given. More accurate and complete reporting will also allow the Collaboration to track progress against policy.
ObjectiveTo investigate the updating period, methods and procedures of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in China. MethodsWe searched WanFang Data, VIP, CNKI using the term "guideline" in the title, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) using "guideline" as the topic word up to December 2012. Then we screened and analyzed all included papers. ResultsA total of 380 Chinese CPGs were included. Thirty-eight (10%) guidelines have been updated, among which the longest update period was 10 years and the shortest was 1 year, and the average update period was 5.1 years. Eight (2%) of the updated guidelines had been updated more than once, and the average update time of them was 3, average update period was 4.9 years. There were 42 (12%) of the rest 342 guidelines which have never been updated mentioned that they would be updated. The detailed information of the updated guidelines according to their clinical objectives were as follow:1 (0.3%) was prevention guideline, of which the update period was 4 years; 8 (2%) were treatment guidelines and the average update period was 4.3 years; 5 (1%) were prevention and treatment guidelines, and the average update period was 6.8 years; 18 (5%) were diagnosis and treatment guidelines, and the average update period was 5.3 years; 4 (1%) were technology guidelines and the average update period was 5.5 years; and the average update period of the 2 (0.5%) integrative guidelines was 2.5 years. Forty (10%) of the total 380 guidelines had described their updating methods. ConclusionAccording the analysis of international studies and domestic guidelines, the update rate of Chinese CPGs is low, the update period is comparatively long, with differences found among them. The reporting of the updated CPGs' methods and procedures is insufficient, with less normalization. Big differences have been found in their updating condition among CPGs of different types and institutional developers.
The Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 is a revision of the STARD 2003 on the checklist and flow chart, on the basis of the new evidences of potential bias and applicability, to better guide the application of diagnostic test in clinical practices. Currently, the interpretation and application in China is still based on STARD 2003. This review will describe the application status of the original version and introduce the updated standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.
The American Heart Association (AHA) released the 2017 American Heart Association Focused Update on Adult Basic Life Support and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality (2017 AHA guidelines update) in November 2017. The 2017 AHA guidelines update was updated according to the rules named " the update of the guideline is no longer released every five years, but whenever new evidence is available” in the 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. The updated content in this guideline included five parts: dispatch-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), bystander CPR, emergency medical services - delivered CRP, CRP for cardiac arrest, and chest compression - to - ventilation ratio. This review will interpret the 2017 AHA guidelines update in detail.
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a disease with heterogeneous manifestations in patients who have manifest or latent psoriasis. It comprises both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations. Active chronic PsA is often accompanied by cardiovascular, psychological and metabolic complications. Although the quantity of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) indicated for PsA has increased, clinicians still require some guidance in decision-making. Based on the latest evidence-based research results, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) in 2019 developed the recommendations for the pharmacological management of PsA updated in 2015 with new recommendations. This paper interprets the update contents of the guideline to provide references for the clinical treatment of PsA.
Objective To update and form an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 1.0). Methods We updated the systematic review of global guideline clinical applicability evaluation instruments to form the initial item list and carried out Delphi expert consultation to establish the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Results The general structure of version 2.0 was consistent with that of version 1.0, which included 12 evaluation items belonging to five domains covering accessibility, readability, acceptability, feasibility, and an overall evaluation. Moreover, some new items were added in version 2.0, such as "The guideline does not provide supporting tools or resources and the operation is poor", "After the guideline implementation, the expected effects of diagnosis and treatment do not be achieved", " Medical staff in your workplace believe that the guideline is not necessary because they have sufficient medical experience, etc.", "Lack of authority of the organizations and personnel that developed the guideline" and "Medical staff in your workplace are reluctant to change the original medical practice". Conclusion This study updated and formed an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0), which is able to better assess the applicability of new clinical guidelines and greatly promote more appropriate guidelines into practice.