The UpPriority tool supported prioritization processes for updating clinical guideline questions
| Autor: | Andrea Juliana Sanabria, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Emma McFarlane, Ena Niño de Guzman, Marta Roqué, Laura Martínez García, Alcocer Yuste Pablo, Ayuso García Carmen, Benatar Haserfaty Jacobo, Blasco Suñé Cristina, Bover Freire Ramón, Carlos Gil Ana María, Carreño Salas Ester, Castany Aregall Marta, Castellanos Rodríguez Ángel, Duch Susana, Gamarra Ortiz Javier, Hernández Verdejo José Luis, Jiménez Rolando Belén, Llaneza Coto Ángel Plácido, Martínez Férez Isabel María, Martínez Sanz Henar, Mendieta Rasós Núria, Millán José María, Mingorance Moya Ester, Montilla Ortega Manuel, Navero Rodríguez José Manuel, Oballa Juan Carlos, Perello Capo Josep, Pujol Olivia, Rigo Jaume, Rodríguez Neila Elena, Sánchez Borrego Rafael, Sanz Segovia Francisco José, Tellez Jesús, Zapata Miguel Ángel |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Clinical Trials as Topic
Evidence-based practice Process management Evidence-Based Medicine Epidemiology Process (engineering) Computer science Health Priorities Reproducibility of Results Sample (statistics) Guidelines as Topic Guideline Personalization Identification (information) Ranking Humans Delivery of Health Care Reliability (statistics) |
| Zdroj: | Journal of clinical epidemiology. 139 |
| ISSN: | 1878-5921 |
| Popis: | Objective We aim to 1) use the UpPriority tool to identify which clinical questions (CQs) within the clinical guidelines (CGs) need to be prioritized for updating and 2) assess the implementation of the tool in a real-world set of CGs. Study Design and Setting We systematically assessed CQs from a sample of CGs developed in the Spanish National Health System CG program. We applied the UpPriority tool to each CG using a step-by-step process that included: 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group, 2) mapping of the original CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4) assessment of CQ's priority according to six items, 5) calculation and ranking of priority scores, 6) decision of prioritized CQs for updating, and 7) development of the priority report. We assessed the tool implementation process (appraisers’ experience when using the tool) and the inter-observer reliability of the tool, and we provided suggestions for improvement. Results We included four CGs with a total of 107 CQs on the following topics: chronic heart failure (10 CQs), inherited retinal dystrophies (39 CQs), menopause (20 CQs), and open-angle glaucoma (38 CQs). We included a total of 30 participants, most of them clinicians that were members of the original CG development groups. CQs were classified in three groups: 1) high priority (CQs prioritized for updating [16/107; 15.0%]), 2) medium priority (CQs that could be prioritized for updating [47/107; 43.9%]), and low priority (CQs that were not prioritized for updating [44/107; 41.1%]). The mean time each appraiser needed to assess the CQs with the tool was 3.8 hours (range 0.5 to 10). Agreement among the appraisers varied among the CGs. Appraisers considered that the tool was useful. We suggest some areas for consideration when using the tool including: 1) identification of key appraisers, 2) customization of training materials, 3) establishment of priority thresholds, and 4) provision of methodological support. Conclusion The UpPriority is a useful tool to identify which CQs within a CG need to be prioritized for update in a real-world scenario. Recruitment and training of topic experts are the main challenges when using the tool. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect