Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 86, Issue , 2017, Pages 11-24

  Martínez García, Laura ^a   Pardo Hernandez, Hector ^a   Superchi, Cecilia ^a   Niño de Guzman, Ena ^a   Ballesteros, Monica ^a   Ibargoyen Roteta, Nora ^b   McFarlane, Emma ^c   Posso, Margarita ^a   Roqué i Figuls, Marta ^a   Rotaeche del Campo, Rafael ^d   Sanabria, Andrea Juliana ^a,e   Selva, Anna ^a   Solà, Ivan ^a,f   Vernooij, Robin W M ^a   Alonso Coello, Pablo ^a,f  

^a HOSPITAL DE LA SANTA CREU I SANT PAU   (Spain)

^b Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba)   (Spain)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^d Alza Health Centre   (Spain)

^e Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí   (Spain)

^f CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

Author keywords

Clinical guidelines; Methodology; Prioritization; Systematic review; Technology assessment; Updating

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH PRIORITY; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); LITERATURE; STANDARDS;

GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85020784482     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.008     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Sampietro-Colom, L., Lach, K., Cicchetti, A., Kidholm, K., Pasternack, I., Fure, B., et al. The AdHopHTA handbook: a handbook of hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA); public deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018). 2015.
2. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at www.handbook.cochrane.org Accessed November 4, 2016.
3. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual: National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2015.
4. Martínez García, L., Sanabria, A.J., Garcia Alvarez, E., Trujillo-Martin, M.M., Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, I., Kotzeva, A., et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ 186:16 (2014), 1211–1219.
5. Shekelle, P.G., Ortiz, E., Rhodes, S., Morton, S.C., Eccles, M.P., Grimshaw, J.M., et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated?. JAMA 286 (2001), 1461–1467.
6. Shojania, K.G., Sampson, M., Ansari, M.T., Ji, J., Doucette, S., Moher, D., How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 147 (2007), 224–233.
7. Martínez García, L., Arevalo-Rodriguez, I., Sola, I., Haynes, R.B., Vandvik, P.O., Alonso-Coello, P., Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Implement Sci, 7, 2012, 109.
8. Moher, D., Tsertsvadze, A., Systematic reviews: when is an update an update?. Lancet 367 (2006), 881–883.
9. Vernooij, R.W., Sanabria, A.J., Sola, I., Alonso-Coello, P., Martínez García, L., Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks. Implement Sci, 9, 2014, 3.
10. French, S.D., McDonald, S., McKenzie, J.E., Green, S.E., Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?. BMC Med Res Methodol, 5, 2005, 33.
11. Jaidee, W., Moher, D., Laopaiboon, M., Time to update and quantitative changes in the results of cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews. PLoS One, 5(7), 2010, e11553.
12. Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of Biomedical research: a Cross-Sectional study. PLoS Med, 13(5), 2016, e1002028.
13. Garner, P., Hopewell, S., Chandler, J., MacLehose, H., Schünemann, H.J., Akl, E.A., et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ, 354, 2016, i3507.
14. Nasser, M., Welch, V., Tugwell, P., Ueffing, E., Doyle, J., Waters, E., Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 474–482.
15. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, 3rd ed., 2006, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.
16. Velasco Garrido, M., Kristensen, F.B., Nielsen, C.P., Busse, R., (eds.) Health Technology Assessment and Health PolicyMaking in Europe – Current Status, Challenges and Potential, 2008, World Health Organisation, Copenhagen Available at http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E91922.pdf.
17. Alderson, L.J., Alderson, P., Tan, T., Median life span of a cohort of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines was about 60 months. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 52–55.
18. Lyratzopoulos, G., Barnes, S., Stegenga, H., Peden, S., Campbell, B., Updating clinical practice recommendations: is it worthwhile and when?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28 (2012), 29–35.
19. Neuman, M.D., Goldstein, J.N., Cirullo, M.A., Schwartz, J.S., Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart association clinical practice guideline recommendations. JAMA 311 (2014), 2092–2100.
20. Alonso-Coello, P., Martínez García, L., Clinical guidelines: old and new challenges. Med Clin (barc) 143:7 (2014), 306–308.
21. Schünemann, H.J., Wiercioch, W., Etxeandia, I., Falavigna, M., Santesso, N., Mustafa, R., et al. Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ 186:3 (2014), E123–E142.
22. Agbassi, C., Messersmith, H., McNair, S., Brouwers, M., Priority-based initiative for updating existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: the results of two iterations. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 1335–1342.
23. Thomas, J., Harden, A., Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 8, 2008, 45.
24. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), 2009, e1000097.
25. Ahmadzai, N., Newberry, S.J., Maglione, M.A., Tsertsvadze, A., Ansari, M.T., Hempel, S., et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 2, 2013, 104.
26. Amos Q, Chan W, Tom G. Maximising efficiency in updating guidelines through prioritisation of clinical questions [abstract]. 10th G-I-N Conference; San Francisco, California, USA; 2013.
27. Brown, J., Lethaby, A., Clarke, J., Jordan, V., Showell, M., Farquhar, C., The cochrane updating project. Evidence in the Era of Globalisation. Abstracts of the 16th Cochrane Colloquium; 2008 3–7 Oct; Freiburg, Germany, 2008 Available at http://abstracts.cochrane.org/2008-freiburg/cochrane-updating-project.
28. Chang S. When to update, when to Archive? The AHRQ EPC Program. Updating Cochrane Reviews Workshop; Hamilton, Canada; 2014.
29. Crossan C, Westby M, Lord J. Modelling of clinical pathways to assess cost-effectiveness in NICE guidelines: impact on stakeholder view of the importance of potential update topics [abstract]. 9th G-I-N Conference; Berlin, Germany; 2012.
30. Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M., Moher, D., Scholten, R., Eisinga, A., et al. A decision tool for updating Cochrane reviews. 2007, Cochrane Editorial Unit.
31. Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M., Moher, D., French, S., Scholten, R., et al. Development of a decision tool for updating Cochrane reviews. Evidence in the era of globalisation. Abstracts of the 16th Cochrane Colloquium; 2008 3–7 Oct; Freiburg, Germany, 2008.
32. Jamshidi A, Lamontagne M, Ait-kadi D, Ruiz A, Routhier F. Developing a comprehensive priority-based framework for updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs): a systematic review and international survey. Huitième Colloque Étudiant du CIRRIS; Québec, Canada; 2016.
33. Jordan, V., Farquhar, C., Brown, A., Clarke, J., Lethaby, A., Jeffery, M., Centralised updating officer pilot project a project of the Cochrane Collaboration final report: August 2008. 2008, NZ Cochrane Branch of the Australasian Cochrane Centre & Cochrane, Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group.
34. Langan, D., Higgins, J., Gregory, W., Crowther, M., Sutton, A., Graphical augmentations to the funnel plot for assessing the impact of additional evidence on a meta-analysis. Abstracts of the 19th Cochrane Colloquium; 2011 19–22 Oct; Madrid, Spain, 2011, John Wiley & Sons Available at http://abstracts.cochrane.org/2011-madrid/graphical-augmentations-funnel-plot-assessing-impact-additional-evidence-meta-analysis.
35. Langan, D., Higgins, J.P., Gregory, W., Sutton, A.J., Graphical augmentations to the funnel plot assess the impact of additional evidence on a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 65 (2012), 511–519.
36. Lord, J., Willis, S., Eatock, J., Tappenden, P., Trapero-Bertran, M., Miners, A., et al. Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care excellence clinical guidelines: the modelling algorithm pathways in guidelines (MAPGuide) project. Health Technol Assess 17 (2013), v–vi 1-192.
37. Newberry, S.J., Ahmadzai, N., Motala, A., Tsertsvadze, A., Maglione, M., Ansari, M.T., et al. Surveillance and identification of signals for updating systematic reviews: implementation and early experience. 2013, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality US, Rockville, MD.
38. Cancer Care Ontario [Homepage]. Document assessment and review protocol version 1.2. 2015, Program in Evidence-Based Care, Canada Available at https://www.cancercare.on.ca/cms/one.aspx?objectId=122178&contextId=1377.
39. Salzwedel, D., Wright, J., Citation rates of systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension and blood pressure. Bero, L., Montgomery, P., Robinson, K., Pigott, T., Krause, K., (eds.) Bringing Evidence-Based Decision-Making to New Heights. Abstracts of the 2010 Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations; 2010 18–22 Oct; Keystone, USA, 2010, John Wiley & Sons Available at http://abstracts.cochrane.org/2010-keystone/citation-rates-systematic-reviews-interventions-hypertension-and-blood-pressure.
40. Shekelle, P.G., Newberry, S., Maglione, M., Shanman, R., Johnsen, B., Carter, J., et al. Assessment of the need to update comparative effectiveness reviews: Report of an initial rapid program assessment (2005-2009). 2009, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality US, Rockville, MD.
41. Shekelle, P.G., Motala, A., Johnsen, B., Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. 2014, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality US, Rockville MD.
42. Shekelle, P.G., Motala, A., Johnsen, B., Newberry, S.J., Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 3, 2014, 13.
43. Soll, R.F., Updating reviews: the experience of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 22 (2008), 29–32.
44. Sutton, A., Gamble, C., Donegan, S., Garner, P., Evaluating two statistical methods to predict when a meta-analysis will gain sufficient power to change the conclusions of a Cochrane review. Come to the craic. Abstracts of the 14th Cochrane Colloquium; 2006 23-26 Oct; Dublin, UK, 2006.
45. Sutton, A.J., Donegan, S., Takwoingi, Y., Garner, P., Gamble, C., Donald, A., An encouraging assessment of methods to inform priorities for updating systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 241–251.
46. Takwoingi, Y., Sutton, A., Donegan, S., Garner, P., Gamble, C., Donald, A., Prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. Evidence in the Era of Globalisation. Abstracts of the 16th Cochrane Colloquium; 2008 3–7 Oct; Freiburg, Germany, 2008.
47. Takwoingi, Y., Hopewell, S., Sutton, A., Marshall, R., Tovey, D., Predicting the need to update a systematic review. Abstracts of the 19th Cochrane Colloquium; 2011 19–22 Oct; Madrid, Spain, 2011, John Wiley & Sons.
48. Takwoingi, Y., Hopewell, S., Tovey, D., Sutton, A.J., A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. BMJ, 347, 2013, f7191.
49. Takwoingi, Y., Marshall, R., Hopewell, S., Tovey, D., Sutton, A.J., The updating decision tool: guidance for cochrane review groups and authors. 2014, Cochrane Editorial Unit.
50. Theobald S, Blanc-Vincent MP, Farsi F, Gory-Delabaere G, Bataillard A, Guillo S, et al. The identification of questions in the updating process of clinical practice guidelines for oncology [abstract]. 15th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care; Edinburgh, UK; 1999.
51. Tovey, D., Marshall, R., Bazian, L., Hopewell, S., Rader, T., Fit for purpose: centralised updating support for high-priority Cochrane Reviews. 2011, Cochrane Editorial Unit.
52. Venhorst K, Ploegmakers M, Holtus A, Van Barnelveld T. What is needed to realize a dynamic process of guideline updating [abstract]. 11th G-I-N Conference; Melbourne, Australia; 2014.
53. Welsh, E., Stovold, E., Karner, C., Cates, C., Cochrane Airways Group reviews were prioritised for updating using a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 341–346.
54. Maceira Rozas MC, Varela Lema L, Atienza Merino G. Tecnologías sanitarias nuevas y emergentes 2015. Lista priorizada. Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías y Prestaciones del SNS. Axencia Galega para a Xestión do Coñecemento en Saúde, Unidad de Asesoramiento Científico-técnico, avalia-t; 2016. Informes de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias.
55. Puñal-Riobóo J, Baños Álvarez E, Varela Lema L, Castillo Muñoz MA, Atienza Merino G, Ubago Pérez R, et al. en representación del Grupo de trabajo de la Guía para la elaboración y adaptación de informes rápidos de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias. Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Prestaciones del SNS. Agencia Gallega para la Gestión del Conocimiento en Salud. Unidad de Asesoramiento Científico-técnico, avalia-t; 2016.
56. ○. 2007/01.
57. Varela-Lema L, Atienza Merino G, López-García M. Selección de prioridades sanitarias: criterios, proceso y marco estratégico. Revisión sistemática. Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías y Prestaciones del SNS. Axencia Galega para a Xestión do Coñecemento en Saúde. Unidade de Asesoramento Científico-técnico, avalia-t. Informes de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias; 2016.
58. European Network For Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Description of criteria to select and prioritize health technologies for additional evidence generation. Work Package 7 Lead Partner: HAS, French National Authority for Health, 2012.
59. Becker, M., Neugebauer, E.A., Eikermann, M., Partial updating of clinical practice guidelines often makes more sense than full updating: a systematic review on methods and the development of an updating procedure. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 33–45.
60. Baker M. Maintaining the currency of a Large guidelines portfolio; Necessity is the Mother of Invention. In Abstracts directory of the 13th G-I-N Conference; 2016 27–30 September; Philadelphia, USA; 2016. Available at http://www.g-i-n.net/document-store/g-i-n-conferences/philadelphia-2016/abstract-directory-2016.
61. Elliott, J.H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J.P., Mavergames, C., et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence practice gap. PLoS Med, 11(2), 2014, e1001603.
62. Johnston, M.E., Brouwers, M.C., Browman, G.P., Keeping cancer guidelines current: results of a comprehensive prospective literature monitoring strategy for twenty clinical practice guidelines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19:4 (2003), 646–655.
63. MAGIC (making GRADE the irresistible choice) [Internet]. [cited 1 October 2016]. Available at http://magicproject.org.
64. McFarlane E, Sparrow K, Willett S, Alderson P, White C, Sanabria AJ, et al. Live guideline surveillance: the future of surveillance? In Abstracts directory of the 13th G-I-N Conference; 2016 27–30 September; Philadelphia, USA; 2016. Available at http://www.g-i-n.net/document-store/g-i-n-conferences/philadelphia-2016/abstract-directory-2016.
65. Alonso-Coello, P., Martínez García, L., Carrasco, J.M., Sola, I., Qureshi, S., Burgers, J.S., The updating of clinical practice guidelines: insights from an international survey. Implement Sci, 6, 2011, 107.
66. Martínez García L, Pardo-Hernández H, Sanabria AJ, Alonso-Coello P. Pregnancy Clinical Guideline Updating Working Group. Continuous surveillance of a pregnancy clinical guideline: an early experience, Syst Rev, 2017 [accepted].
67. Grupo de trabajo sobre GPC. Elaboración de Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Actualización del Manual Metodológico [Internet]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad - GuíaSalud; 2016. Available at http://portal.guiasalud.es/emanuales/elaboracion/index-02.html.
68. Barnieh, L., Jun, M., Laupacis, A., Manns, B., Hemmelgarn, B., Determining research priorities through partnership with patients: an overview. Semin Dial 28 (2015), 141–146.
69. Domecq, J.P., Prutsky, G., Elraiyah, T., Wang, Z., Nabhan, M., Shippee, N., et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res, 14, 2014, 89.
70. Guise, J.M., O'Haire, C., McPheeters, M., Most, C., Labrant, L., Lee, K., et al. A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 666–674.
71. Atkins, D., Perez-Padilla, R., Macnee, W., Buist, A.S., Cruz, A.A., ATS/ERS Ad Hoc Committee on Integrating and Coordinating Efforts in COPD guideline development. Priority setting in guideline development: article 2 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc 9 (2012), 225–228.
72. Bero, L.A., Binder, L., The Cochrane Collaboration review prioritization projects show that a variety of approaches successfully identify high-priority topics. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 472–473.
73. Husereau, D., Boucher, M., Noorani, H., Priority setting for health Technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26 (2010), 341–347.
74. Noorani, H.Z., Husereau, D.R., Boudreau, R., Skidmore, B., Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23 (2007), 310–315.
75. Cochrane Community Blog [Internet]. Foxlee R Prioritization Work Within Cochrane Rev Groups: a Ser case Stud [cited 1 October 2016]. Available at http://community.cochrane.org/news/prioritization-work-within-cochrane-review-groups-series-case-studies.
76. Martínez García, L., McFarlane, E., Barnes, S., Sanabria, A.J., Alonso-Coello, P., Alderson, P., Updated recommendations: an assessment of NICE clinical guidelines. Implement Sci, 9, 2014, 72.
77. Peterson, K., McDonagh, M.S., Fu, R., Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 977–984.
78. Vernooij, R.W., Alonso-Coello, P., Brouwers, M., Martínez García, L., CheckUp Panel. Reporting items for updated clinical guidelines: checklist for the reporting of updated guidelines (CheckUp). PLoS Med, 14(1), 2017, e1002207.
79. Gentles, S.J., Charles, C., Nicholas, D.B., Ploeg, J., McKibbon, K.A., Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 172.