Making the GRADE in anaphylaxis management: Toward recommendations integrating values,preferences, context,and shared decision making

ObjectiveTo review GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methods and discuss the clinical application of conditional recommendations in clinical guidelines, specifically in the context of anaphylaxis.Data SourcesArticles that described GRADE, evidence synthesis, evidence to recommendation frameworks, and shared decision making were used to discuss conditional recommendations of the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline.Study SelectionsA narrative review detailing concepts of GRADE and approaches to translate conditional recommendations to individualized and contextualized patient care.ResultsGRADE methods encourage a nuanced relationship between certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Strength of recommendation must incorporate key factors, including the balance between benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation (costs), with equity, feasibility, and acceptability also often included as considerations. GRADE guidelines provide recommendations that are characterized by directionality (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional). A conditional recommendation is tailored to context and primarily applied through a lens of patient preferences related to the likelihood of outcomes of importance and a shared decision-making approach. Although the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline better informs the practice of anaphylaxis prevention through (1) identification and mitigation of risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis and (2) evaluation of the use of glucocorticoid and/or antihistamine pretreatment, all GRADE recommendations, although directional, are conditional and as such should not be universally applied to every circumstance.ConclusionClinical guidelines provide an important opportunity to critically appraise evidence and translate evidence to practice. Patients, practitioners, and policy makers should appreciate the strength of recommendation and certainty of evidence and understand how this affects guideline applicability and implementation.     

Central Vascular Access Device: An Adapted Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline

BackgroundOur aim was to adapt recommendations from high-quality, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for central vascular access device (CVAD) insertion, management, and removal in King Saud University Medical City. Currently, the hospital has a policy and procedure for CVAD insertion; however, the methodology of creating the policy document was not evidence-based, and the clinical content was not up to date. A new CPG will guide the revision of CVAD policies and procedures and eliminate variation in clinician practices.MethodsThe King Saud University Medical City CPG Committee introduced the modified ADAPTE process methodology for adaptation and implementation of CPGs originally developed by the ADAPTE Collaboration.ResultsThe final decision of the panel after full assessment of 2 selected source CPGs was to adopt all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CPG recommendations and some essential sections from the Infusion Nurses Society CPG recommendations. In addition, the team developed new implementation tools.ConclusionsThe ADAPTE process is an excellent scientific and rigorous process for CPG adaptation and clinical performance improvement. It can be further adapted according to the local context and resources to promote a sense of ownership of the adapted CPG. Furthermore, new CPGs will have a positive effect on hospital-wide accreditation processes and local benchmarking of health care quality outcomes.     

What drives junior doctors to use clinical practice guidelines? A national cross-sectional survey of foundation doctors in England & Wales

Background

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to improve patient care, but their use remains variable. We explored attitudes that influence CPG use amongst newly qualified doctors.

Methods

A self-completed, anonymous questionnaire was sent to all Foundation Doctors in England and Wales between December 2012 and May 2013. We included questions designed to measure the 11 domains of the validated Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We correlated these responses to questions assessing current and future intention to use CPGs.

Results

A total of 13,138 doctors were invited of which 1693 (13 %) responded. 1,035 (62.5 %) reported regular CPG use with 575 (34.4 %) applying CPGs 2–3 times per week. A significant minority of 606 (36.6 %) declared an inability to critically appraise evidence.Despite efforts to design a questionnaire that captured the domains of the TDF, the domain scales created had low internal reliability. Using previously published studies and input from an expert statistical group, an alternative model was sought using exploratory factor analysis. Five alternative domains were identified. These were judged to represent: “confidence”, “familiarity”, “commitment and duty”, “time” and “perceived benefits”.Using regression analyses, the first three were noted as consistent predictors of both current and future intentions to use CPGs in decreasing strength order.

Conclusions

In this large survey of newly qualified doctors, “confidence”, “familiarity” and “commitment and duty” were identified as domains that influence use of CPGs in frontline practice. Additionally, a significant minority were not confident in critically appraising evidence.Our findings suggest a number of approaches that may be taken to improve junior doctors’ commitment to CPGs through processes that increase their confidence and familiarity in using CPGs.Despite limitations of a self-reported survey and potential non-response bias, these findings are from a large representative sample and a review of existing implementation strategies may be warranted based on these findings.

     

A new method for determining physician decision thresholds using empiric,uncertain recommendations

Background  

The concept of risk thresholds has been studied in medical decision making for over 30 years. During that time, physicians have been shown to be poor at estimating the probabilities required to use this method. To better assess physician risk thresholds and to more closely model medical decision making, we set out to design and test a method that derives thresholds from actual physician treatment recommendations. Such an approach would avoid the need to ask physicians for estimates of patient risk when trying to determine individual thresholds for treatment. Assessments of physician decision making are increasingly relevant as new data are generated from clinical research. For example, recommendations made in the setting of ocular hypertension are of interest as a large clinical trial has identified new risk factors that should be considered by physicians. Precisely how physicians use this new information when making treatment recommendations has not yet been determined.     

Evidence-based classification of recommendations on use of genomic tests in clinical practice: Dealing with insufficient evidence

Numerous genomic tests continue to emerge as potential tools in the diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and prevention for a wide variety of common human diseases. To date, most of these tests have “insufficient evidence” of clinical validity and utility for their use in clinical practice. Explicit and quantitative tools can be used in the evaluation of direct and indirect evidence on the utility of genomic tests. As suggested in an article in this month's issue by Veenstra et al., a recommendation matrix can be developed based on the amount of certainty of the evidence and the assessment of the risk-benefit profile. To supplement the current binary (up or down) evidence-based recommendation for use, it is worthwhile to explore all available data to develop a three-tier evidence-based recommendation classification of genomic tests (“use in practice,” “promote informed decision-making,” and “discourage use”). Promoting informed decision making may be a valuable recommendation for tests for which there is sufficient information on analytic and clinical validity and for which the risk/benefit analysis on clinical utility is promising but not definitive. This approach could provide interim guidance for clinical practice, while rigorous outcomes research is conducted to assess the impact of such tests on patients, families, and population health outcomes.     

Comprehensive mitigation framework for concurrent application of multiple clinical practice guidelines

In this work we propose a comprehensive framework based on first-order logic (FOL) for mitigating (identifying and addressing) interactions between multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applied to a multi-morbid patient while also considering patient preferences related to the prescribed treatment. With this framework we respond to two fundamental challenges associated with clinical decision support: (1) concurrent application of multiple CPGs and (2) incorporation of patient preferences into the decision making process.We significantly expand our earlier research by (1) proposing a revised and improved mitigation-oriented representation of CPGs and secondary medical knowledge for addressing adverse interactions and incorporating patient preferences and (2) introducing a new mitigation algorithm. Specifically, actionable graphs representing CPGs allow for parallel and temporal activities (decisions and actions). Revision operators representing secondary medical knowledge support temporal interactions and complex revisions across multiple actionable graphs. The mitigation algorithm uses the actionable graphs, revision operators and available (and possibly incomplete) patient information represented in FOL. It relies on a depth-first search strategy to find a valid sequence of revisions and uses theorem proving and model finding techniques to identify applicable revision operators and to establish a management scenario for a given patient if one exists. The management scenario defines a safe (interaction-free) and preferred set of activities together with possible patient states. We illustrate the use of our framework with a clinical case study describing two patients who suffer from chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation, and who are managed according to CPGs for these diseases.While in this paper we are primarily concerned with the methodological aspects of mitigation, we also briefly discuss a high-level proof of concept implementation of the proposed framework in the form of a clinical decision support system (CDSS). The proposed mitigation CDSS “insulates” clinicians from the complexities of the FOL representations and provides semantically meaningful summaries of mitigation results. Ultimately we plan to implement the mitigation CDSS within our MET (Mobile Emergency Triage) decision support environment.     

Assessment of the Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Korea Using the AGREE Instrument

The objective of this study was to conduct the systematic evaluation of methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Korea. The authors conducted a very comprehensive literature search to identify potential CPGs for evaluation. CPGs were selected which were consistent with a predetermined criteria. Four reviewers evaluated the quality of the CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. AGREE item scores and standardized domain scores were calculated. The inter-rater reliability of each domain was evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Consequently, 66 CPGs were selected and their quality evaluated. ICCs for CPG appraisal using the AGREE Instrument ranged from 0.626 to 0.877. Except for the "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity and Presentation domains", 80% of CPGs scored less than 40 in all other domains. This review shows that many Korean research groups and academic societies have made considerable efforts to develop CPGs, and the number of CPGs has increased over time. However, the quality of CPGs in Korea were not good according to the AGREE Instrument evaluation. Therefore, we should make more of an effort to ensure the high quality of CPGs.     

AGREEⅡ评价9个儿童青少年维生素D临床实践指南及推荐意见共识和差异

目的 使用指南研究与评价工具Ⅱ（AGREEⅡ）评价儿童青少年维生素D（VD）临床实践指南（VD指南）,反映目前儿童青少年补充VD的基本共识和存在的争议.方法 制定VD指南的纳入标准和检索策略,检索PubMed、Web of Science、中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库、美国国立指南文库（NGC）、指南国际网络（G-I-N）等相关指南数据库,按纳入标准纳入有关儿童青少年VD指南,提取和描述VD指南AGREEⅡ评价信息,使用AGREEⅡ评价纳入指南质量,使用组内相关系数（ICC）进行评价员间一致性检验.分析比较不同VD指南推荐内容的共识和差异.结果 共纳入9篇VD指南,分别来自美国、中国、加拿大、法国、波兰和澳大利亚/新西兰.发表年度从2006至2012年.3篇为循证指南,其中2篇采用GRADE证据分级系统,1篇采用AHRQ证据分级系统;其余6篇为非循证指南.①指南质量经AGREEⅡ评分显示：6大领域的评分中,范围和目的 、清晰性和应用性的总体平均得分均〉50%,指南制定的参与人员、制定的严谨性和编辑的独立性有待加强（平均得分分别为48%、42%和28%）;循证指南在指南的参与人员、制定的严谨性、编辑的独立性方面优于非循证指南.②总体归纳不同VD指南之间在推荐内容上有5个方面的主要差异.VD预防建议：各指南基本认同的是0～1岁婴儿400 IU·d-1的VD缺乏预防量是安全的;VD治疗建议：美国（ES）指南推荐2 000 IU·d-1（1～18岁）,维持6周;阳光照射：美国和澳大利亚/新西兰的指南持不同推荐意见;VD2或VD3：不同指南推荐意见不同;25羟维生素D（25OHD）水平：各指南基本认同25OHD水平〈30 nmol·L-1时,佝偻病的患病率增加;孕妇及哺乳期妇女：各指南推荐这一人群要注意及时补充VD,或维持适宜的25OHD水平.结论 ①纳入VD指南整体质量仍有待提高.循证指南质量在指南的参与人员、制定的严谨性、编辑独立性方面优于非循证指南.②纳入VD指南推荐内容虽有一定的差异,但对于0～18岁人群400 IU·d-1的VD缺乏预防量被认为是安全的剂量.③中国VD指南推荐内容参考了国外高质量的指南,改编和制定国内高质量的指南迫在眉睫.     

Development of patient versions of guidelines in Chinese mainland: A systematic survey of current practices and methods

ObjectivesTo review current practices and methods underlying the development of patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) in Chinese mainland.MethodsWe systematically searched for PVGs created or published between January 2010 and February 2022. We conducted a framework analysis for the development process and assessed the compliance of PVGs using the Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines (RIGHT-PVG).ResultsWe identified 26 PVGs developed by 16 PVG-working teams. In accordance with the Guidelines International Network (GIN), only two PVGs were translated using one clinical practice guideline (CPG) provided by the CPG-working group source. Several CPGs and other information sources were integrated and translated into a single PVG by other PVG teams. Moreover, we identified various practices described by different PVG teams that could be structured into six steps. Out of the 17 RIGHT-PVG items, five items were fully reported in all PVGs, while two items (“Provide a summary of the PVG” and “Provide a list of terms and abbreviations”) were not reported in any of the PVGs.Conclusions and practical implicationsA relatively small number of PVGs were developed in Chinese mainland. The development of a PVG requires comprehensive methodological guidance based on several CPGs and other sources of information as opposed to only using one.     

Extending the GEM model to support knowledge extraction from textual guidelines

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are being developed as a tool to promote best practice in medicine. However, the diffusion of paper guidelines has been shown to only have a limited impact. This is why computerization of CPGs has recently been suggested as a means to improve their dissemination as well as physicians' compliance. The Guideline Elements Model (GEM) has been proposed to facilitate the encoding of CPGs and support the automatic processing of marked-up documents. In this paper, we explore the automatic generation of a rule base from a textual guideline using GEM. In this study, we propose an extension of the GEM model that introduces additional levels of structuring centered on decision variables. This allows a more efficient representation of the decision processes, which supports the automatic generation of decision rules from textual guidelines. The 1999 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension have been marked-up as a GEM-encoded instance of our extended DTD. We derived a rule base using an XML parser to extract the relevant elements to instantiate the IF and THEN clauses of decision rules. The rule base automatically generated compares favourably with the manual generation of decision rules in the ASTI project. This approach is an interesting case study in the computerization of CPGs, as it illustrates processing steps that are relevant to the various aspects of CPGs life-cycle, from production to consultation and use.     

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines

The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach provides guidance to grading the quality of underlying evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. The GRADE system's conceptual underpinnings allow for a detailed stepwise process that defines what role the quality of the available evidence plays in the development of health care recommendations. The merit of GRADE is not that it eliminates judgments or disagreements about evidence and recommendations, but rather that it makes them transparent. This first article in a three-part series describes the GRADE framework in relation to grading the quality of evidence about interventions based on examples from the field of allergy and asthma. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence reflects the extent to which a guideline panel's confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation. The system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence.     

European guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia

This European guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia was developed by a task force of the European Sleep Research Society, with the aim of providing clinical recommendations for the management of adult patients with insomnia. The guideline is based on a systematic review of relevant meta‐analyses published till June 2016. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians involved in the management of insomnia, and the target patient population includes adults with chronic insomnia disorder. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to grade the evidence and guide recommendations. The diagnostic procedure for insomnia, and its co‐morbidities, should include a clinical interview consisting of a sleep history (sleep habits, sleep environment, work schedules, circadian factors), the use of sleep questionnaires and sleep diaries, questions about somatic and mental health, a physical examination and additional measures if indicated (i.e. blood tests, electrocardiogram, electroencephalogram; strong recommendation, moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence). Polysomnography can be used to evaluate other sleep disorders if suspected (i.e. periodic limb movement disorder, sleep‐related breathing disorders), in treatment‐resistant insomnia, for professional at‐risk populations and when substantial sleep state misperception is suspected (strong recommendation, high‐quality evidence). Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is recommended as the first‐line treatment for chronic insomnia in adults of any age (strong recommendation, high‐quality evidence). A pharmacological intervention can be offered if cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is not sufficiently effective or not available. Benzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonists and some antidepressants are effective in the short‐term treatment of insomnia (≤4 weeks; weak recommendation, moderate‐quality evidence). Antihistamines, antipsychotics, melatonin and phytotherapeutics are not recommended for insomnia treatment (strong to weak recommendations, low‐ to very‐low‐quality evidence). Light therapy and exercise need to be further evaluated to judge their usefulness in the treatment of insomnia (weak recommendation, low‐quality evidence). Complementary and alternative treatments (e.g. homeopathy, acupuncture) are not recommended for insomnia treatment (weak recommendation, very‐low‐quality evidence).     

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations

This is the third and last article in the series about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines and its application in the field of allergy. We describe the factors that influence the strength of recommendations about the use of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic interventions: the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, the quality of a body of evidence related to a decision, patients' values and preferences, and considerations of resource use. We provide examples from two recently developed guidelines in the field of allergy that applied the GRADE approach. The main advantages of this approach are the focus on patient important outcomes, explicit consideration of patients' values and preferences, the systematic approach to collecting the evidence, the clear separation of the concepts of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and transparent reporting of the decision process. The focus on transparency facilitates understanding and implementation and should empower patients, clinicians and other health care professionals to make informed choices.     

Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines: Current Status of Adherence to the RIGHT Checklist

BackgroundThe Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) has been utilizing AGREE II to audit the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in Korea. Monitoring the RIGHT Checklist adherence could help monitor the quality status and discover areas for improvement of CPG development.MethodsWe included 129 CPGs from the past 5 years and assessed each item of the RIGHT Checklist. STATA version 15.0 was used for statistical analysis.ResultsAmong the seven sections of the RIGHT checklist, sections with a full compliance rate over 60% were ‘basic information’ (65%) and ‘background’ (66%). The other sections’ mean full compliance rates were ‘Evidence’ 52%, ‘Recommendation’ 35%, ‘Review and quality assurance’ 25% and ‘Funding, declaration and management of interest’ 17%. Sections with a partial compliance rate over 60% were ‘Recommendation’ (60%) and ‘Funding, declaration and management of interest’ (70%). Non-compliance was highest in the ‘Review and quality assurance’ (17%) domain. In comparison between groups 1 (under median group) and 2 (over median group), group 2 showed a tendency to have multi-stakeholder involvement and present sufficient information on financial resources and conflict of interest declarations. For the CPGs developmental methodology aspect, group 2 provided more pertinent information than group 1 about supporting evidence-making and the process from evidence to recommendation.ConclusionThis study evaluated adherence to the RIGHT Checklist of CPGs developed in Korea. It can provide helpful information to develop strategic plans for enhancing the capabilities of developing CPGs in Korea.     

Clinical overlap between fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Myalgic encephalomyelitis is an illness characterized by profound malaise after mental or physical effort occurring in patients already suffering from constant fatigue. On the other hand, widespread pain and widespread allodynia are the core fibromyalgia clinical features. There is controversy on these two syndromes alikeness.Through the years, different diagnostic and/or classification criteria have been put forward to appraise both fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis. The epidemiology of these two illnesses, and their overlap, may vary accordingly to the used definition. The most recent Wolfe et al. 2016 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria incorporates three myalgic encephalomyelitis features including fatigue, waking unrefreshed and dyscognition.The objective of this meta-analysis was to define the clinical overlap between fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis based on a systematic literature review.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Lilacs, and Cochrane data bases were searched on January 25, 2021 linking the medical subject heading “Fibromyalgia” to the following terms “chronic fatigue syndrome”, “myalgic encephalomyelitis” and “systemic exertion intolerance disease”. Our review included all original articles in which the clinical overlap between fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis could be quantified based on recognized diagnostic or classification criteria. Articles scrutiny and selection followed the PRISMA guidelines. Each study quality was assessed according to GRADE recommendations. The global clinical overlap was calculated using a fixed effect model with inverse variance-weighted average method.ResultsTwenty one publications were included in the meta-analysis. Reviewed studies were highly dissimilar in their design, objectives, sample size, diagnostic criteria, and/or outcomes yielding a 98% heterogeneity index. Nevertheless, the clinical overlap between fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis was a well defined outcome that could be reliably calculated despite the high heterogeneity value. All reviewed publications had moderate GRADE evidence level. Most evaluated articles used the old 1990 Wolfe et al. fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria. Myalgic encephalomyelitis and fibromyalgia diagnoses overlapped in 47.3% (95% CI: 45.97–48.63) of the reported cases.ConclusionThis meta-analysis found prominent clinical overlap between fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalomyelitis. It seems likely that this concordance would be even higher when using the most recent Wolfe et al. 2016 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria.     

Context, automated decision support, and clinical practice guidelines: does the literature apply to the United States practice environment?

BACKGROUND: Context - the combined effect of factors such as physician type, clinical setting, and guideline characteristics - influences the ability of automated decision support (ADS) to improve physician compliance with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our goal was to determine whether research about the utility of ADS for promoting CPG compliance is contextually applicable to United States physicians. METHODS: We extracted information about physicians, settings, and guidelines from all articles published in the last 10 years that describe original research about the use of ADS to promote CPG compliance. The extracted information was compared to the range of practice contexts seen in the United States. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds (65.3%) of papers described studies conducted in an academic setting, but only 11% of physicians report academic affiliations (p<0.0001). Physician reimbursement structure is often not reported. Salaried physicians were explicitly included as subjects in 14% of articles, but make up 45% of US physicians (p<0.0001). There are little data about the generalizability of ADS research to emergency care settings (6% of articles), and nursing home or skilled nursing facilities (10% of articles). Finally, ADS has not been studied at all in several epidemiologically important disease categories. CONCLUSION: The literature does not adequately address some physician, setting, and guideline contexts. Before making policy or spending decisions based on the effectiveness of ADS, additional research is needed to determine whether ADS research can be generalized to under-represented contexts.     

Effect of pore size of porous bead carriers immobilizing antibody on IgE absorption

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) adsorption was studied using antihuman IgE antibody immobilized on alkylamine glass carriers with different pore sizes (Controlled Pore Glass [CPG]) to determine the effect of pore size on IgE absorption in therapeutic immuno-adsorbents. With a series of CPGs whose pore sizes were in the range of 170 to 1400 A, CPGs possessing pore sizes larger than 500 A had higher IgE absorption. A CPG (500-A pore size) with the spacer arm 20 A long did not give better IgE removal than CPG without the spacer arm, since the spacer prevented the immobilization of a sufficient amount of the antibody on the carrier because of steric hindrance. However, the antibodies, once immobilized on CPG with the spacer arm, bound the same amount of IgE molecules (antigens) as those immobilized on CPG without the spacer arm.     

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies

The GRADE approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations provides a comprehensive and transparent approach for developing clinical recommendations about using diagnostic tests or diagnostic strategies. Although grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations about using tests shares the logic of grading recommendations for treatment, it presents unique challenges. Guideline panels and clinicians should be alert to these special challenges when using the evidence about the accuracy of tests as the basis for clinical decisions. In the GRADE system, valid diagnostic accuracy studies can provide high quality evidence of test accuracy. However, such studies often provide only low quality evidence for the development of recommendations about diagnostic testing, as test accuracy is a surrogate for patient-important outcomes at best. Inferring from data on accuracy that using a test improves outcomes that are important to patients requires availability of an effective treatment, improved patients' wellbeing through prognostic information, or – by excluding an ominous diagnosis – reduction of anxiety and the opportunity for earlier search for an alternative diagnosis for which beneficial treatment can be available. Assessing the directness of evidence supporting the use of a diagnostic test requires judgments about the relationship between test results and patient-important consequences. Well-designed and conducted studies of allergy tests in parallel with efforts to evaluate allergy treatments critically will encourage improved guideline development for allergic diseases.     

Patients' Preferences for Participation in Clinical Decision Making: A Review of Published Surveys

Abstract

Models of doctor-patient relations vary between “paternalistic” and “informative.” The paternalistic model emphasizes doctors' authority; alternative models allow patients to exercise their rights to autonomy. Published surveys indicate that most patients want to be informed about their diseases, that a proportion of patients want to participate in planning management of their illnesses, and that some patients would rather be completely passive and would avoid any information. The severity of the patients' conditions, and their being older, less well educated, and male are predictors of a preference for the passive role in the doctor-patient relationship, but demographic and situational characteristics explain only 20% or less of the variability in preferences. The only way a physician can gain insight into an individual patient's desire to participate in decision making is through direct enquiry. The ability to communicate health-related information and to determine the patients' desire to participate in medical decisions should be viewed as a basic clinical skill.