基于GRADE康复临床实践指南证据质量与推荐强度研究

目的 分析康复临床实践指南的GRADE结果。方法 在PubMed、EMBASE、中国知网(CNKI)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)和万方等数据库以及指南相关网站检索康复医学临床指南,检索时限均为建库至2020年1月11日。由2名研究员独立筛选采用GRADE系统的指南,并对GRADE分级结果进行提取分析。结果 共纳入康复临床实践指南83篇,其中46篇(55.4%)应用分级系统,采用GRADE分级系统的指南仅4篇(4.8%),包含44条推荐意见,其中39条(88.6%)具有明确的证据质量。在推荐意见所引用证据中,低质量证据最多(34.1%);在推荐意见中,弱推荐较多(56.8%)。强推荐支持证据的质量高于弱推荐(χ² = 8.218, P < 0.05)。 结论 康复临床实践指南对GRADE分级系统的应用仍待提高。建议指南制订者进一步掌握指南和GRADE方法学,更有效地改善康复临床实践指南的可靠性和应用性。     

Going from evidence to recommendations: Can GRADE get us there?

The evidence based medicine movement has championed the need for objective and transparent methods of clinical guideline development. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was developed for that purpose. Central to this framework is criteria for assessing the quality of evidence from clinical studies and the impact that body of evidence should have on our confidence in the clinical effectiveness of a therapy under examination. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation has been adopted by a number of professional medical societies and organizations as a means for orienting the development of clinical guidelines. As a result, the method of GRADE has implications on how health care is delivered and patient outcomes. In this paper, we reveal several issues with the underlying logic of GRADE that warrant further discussion. First, the definitions of the “grades of evidence” provided by GRADE, while explicit, are functionally vague. Second, the “criteria for assigning grade of evidence” is seemingly arbitrary and arguably logically incoherent. Finally, the GRADE method is unclear on how to integrate evidence grades with other important factors, such as patient preferences, and trade‐offs between costs, benefits, and harms when proposing a clinical practice recommendation. Much of the GRADE method requires judgement on the part of the user, making it unclear as to how the framework reduces bias in recommendations or makes them more transparent—both goals of the programme. It is our view that the issues presented in this paper undermine GRADE's justificatory scheme, thereby limiting the usefulness of GRADE as a tool for developing clinical recommendations.     

2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南文献调查与评价——证据质量和推荐强度

目的调查2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南证据质量和/或推荐强度分级现状,以期为指南制订者合理应用证据质量和推荐强度分级方法提供参考。方法系统检索并筛选2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南,纳入对推荐意见进行证据质量和/或推荐强度分级的指南。提取证据质量和推荐强度的分级方法、分级描述和表述内容等信息。结果 2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南共226篇,其中106篇(46.9%)(中文87篇,英文19篇)纳入本研究。采用的分级方法共18种,其中推荐意见分级评价、制订与评估(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, GRADE)分级系统应用最多(35.8%,38/106);采用的分级描述共6种,证据质量分级描述多采用字母(39.6%,42/106),推荐强度分级描述多采用文字(34.9%,37/106)。采用文字描述推荐强度的指南中,最常使用的词语是"可以"。38篇指南采用GRADE分级,仅15篇按照GRADE工作组要求规范呈现分级标准及内容,共包含250条分级明确的推荐意见,60.4%(151/250)为强推荐,44.8%(112/250)的推荐意见引用低或极低质量证据,38.4%(96/250)的推荐意见采用系统评价作为证据支持。结论 2019年期刊公开发表的中国指南分级系统使用率较低,且分级方法使用仍不完整、不统一、不规范。GRADE分级系统使用率低,仅极少数指南按照GRADE工作组要求规范呈现分级标准及内容。推荐使用GRADE分级系统,促进指南推荐意见的科学、透明与合理制订。     

Lack of Consensus Across Clinical Guidelines Regarding the Role of Psychosocial Factors Within Low Back Pain Care: A Systematic Review

It is widely accepted that psychosocial prognostic factors should be addressed by clinicians in their assessment and management of patient suffering from low back pain (LBP). On the other hand, an overview is missing how these factors are addressed in clinical LBP guidelines. Therefore, our objective was to summarize and compare recommendations regarding the assessment and management of psychosocial prognostic factors for LBP chronicity, as reported in clinical LBP guidelines. We performed a systematic search of clinical LBP guidelines (PROSPERO registration number 154730). This search consisted of a combination of previously published systematic review articles and a new systematic search in medical or guideline-related databases. From the included guidelines, we extracted recommendations regarding the assessment and management of LBP which addressed psychosocial prognostic factors (ie, psychological factors [“yellow flags”], perceptions about the relationship between work and health, [“blue flags”], system or contextual obstacles [“black flags”) and psychiatric symptoms [“orange flags”]). In addition, we evaluated the level or quality of evidence of these recommendations. In total, we included 15 guidelines. Psychosocial prognostic factors were addressed in 13 of 15 guidelines regarding their assessment and in 14 of 15 guidelines regarding their management. Recommendations addressing psychosocial factors almost exclusively concerned “yellow” or “black flags,” and varied widely across guidelines. The supporting evidence was generally of very low quality. We conclude that in general, clinical LBP guidelines do not provide clinicians with clear instructions about how to incorporate psychosocial factors in LBP care and should be optimized in this respect. More specifically, clinical guidelines vary widely in whether and how they address psychosocial factors, and recommendations regarding these factors generally require better evidence support. This emphasizes a need for a stronger evidence-base underlying the role of psychosocial risk factors within LBP care, and a need for uniformity in methodology and terminology across guidelines.PerspectiveThis systematic review summarized clinical guidelines on low back pain (LBP) on how they addressed the identification and management of psychosocial factors. This review revealed a large amount of variety across guidelines in whether and how psychosocial factors were addressed. Moreover, recommendations generally lacked details and were based on low quality evidence.     

2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南文献调查与评价——证据质量和推荐强度

目的调查2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南证据质量和/或推荐强度分级现状,以期为指南制订者合理应用证据质量和推荐强度分级方法提供参考。方法系统检索并筛选2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南,纳入对推荐意见进行证据质量和/或推荐强度分级的指南。提取证据质量和推荐强度的分级方法、分级描述和表述内容等信息。结果 2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南共226篇,其中106篇(46.9%)(中文87篇,英文19篇)纳入本研究。采用的分级方法共18种,其中推荐意见分级评价、制订与评估(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, GRADE)分级系统应用最多(35.8%,38/106);采用的分级描述共6种,证据质量分级描述多采用字母(39.6%,42/106),推荐强度分级描述多采用文字(34.9%,37/106)。采用文字描述推荐强度的指南中,最常使用的词语是"可以"。38篇指南采用GRADE分级,仅15篇按照GRADE工作组要求规范呈现分级标准及内容,共包含250条分级明确的推荐意见,60....     

A guide to GRADE guidelines for the readers of JTH

More than 70 organizations worldwide have adopted the GRADE methodology for guideline development. The ninth iteration of the American Collage of Chest Physicians guidelines (AT9) adopted structural and policy changes that resulted in a greater adherence to GRADE guidance than previous iterations. The most important of these changes include minimizing the impact of financial and intellectual conflict of interest, increasing the rigor of evidence evaluation, acknowledging uncertainty in estimates of typical values and preferences, and awareness of the large variability in values and preferences. One of the consequences of the greater adherence to GRADE methodology is an increase in weak vs. strong recommendations in AT9. The result of the GRADE process highlights the desirability of higher‐quality evidence both regarding the outcomes of alternative management strategies and regarding the distribution of values and preferences in patients considering those alternatives. It also encourages shared decision making in encounters between physicians and patients. Although some physicians might find the uncertainty underlying medical practice discouraging or unsettling, relative to denying or obscuring the uncertainty, acknowledging and addressing the uncertainty will lead to more credible, realistic, and useful recommendations.     

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for more profitable strategies in peripheral artery disease

Abstract

Clearly defined processes exist for developing evidence-based guidelines in clinical medicine. Approaches such as the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) where recommendations are made on the basis of quality of evidence gathered in a systematic literature review are also appropriate for recommendations relating to nutritional management of disease. Strong recommendations are based on high-quality evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In nutritional studies, RCTs often examine risk factors and occasionally other surrogates of disease rather than clinical end-points. Criteria are suggested as to when such surrogates may be used. GRADE and similar approaches are less appropriate when considering recommendations regarding chronic disease prevention. Cancer develops over many years, and RCTs exploring nutritional measures to reduce risk are inappropriate. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) has developed an approach in which recommendations are based on clearly defined ‘convincing’ or ‘probable’ relationships between nutritional variables and disease outcomes.

The WCRF criteria have been adapted for developing a wide range of policy recommendations which provide opportunities for those responsible for implementing policy to select options best suited to their purpose. Recommendations related to nutrition policy tend to evolve as a delicate balance between political wisdom and judgement of the scientific evidence. However, policy recommendations are important since they have the potential to create environments which are conducive to the behavioural changes required for improved nutrition.     

The 2012 AHS/AAN guidelines for prevention of episodic migraine: a summary and comparison with other recent clinical practice guidelines

Background.— Updated guidelines for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine have been issued by the American Headache Society (AHS) and the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). We summarize key 2012 guideline recommendations and changes from previous guidelines. We review the characteristics, methods, consistency, and quality of the AHS/AAN guidelines in comparison with recently issued guidelines from other specialty societies. Methods.— To accomplish this, we reviewed the AHS/AAN guidelines and identified comparable recent guidelines through a systematic MEDLINE search. We extracted key data, and summarized and compared the key recommendations and assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation‐II (AGREE‐II) tool. We identified 2 additional recent guidelines for migraine prevention from the Canadian Headache Society and the European Federation of Neurological Societies. All of the guidelines used structured methods to locate evidence and linked recommendations with assessment of the evidence, but they varied in the methods used to derive recommendations from that evidence. Results.— Overall, the 3 guidelines were consistent in their recommendations of treatments for first‐line use. All rated topiramate, divalproex/sodium valproate, propranolol, and metoprolol as having the highest level of evidence. In contrast, recommendations diverged substantially for gabapentin and feverfew. The overall quality of the guidelines ranged from 2 to 6 out of 7 on the AGREE‐II tool. Conclusion.— The AHS/AAN and Canadian guidelines are recommended for use on the basis of the AGREE‐II quality assessment. Recommendations for the future development of clinical practice guidelines in migraine are provided. In particular, efforts should be made to ensure that guidelines are regularly updated and that guideline developers strive to locate and incorporate unpublished clinical trial evidence.     

The Development of Evidence-based Prehospital Guidelines Using a GRADE-based Methodology

Abstract

Background. The burgeoning literature in prehospital care creates an opportunity to improve care through evidence-based guidelines (EBGs). Previously, an established process for the creation of such guidelines and adoption and implementation at the local level was lacking. This has led to great variability in the content of prehospital protocols in different jurisdictions across the globe. Recently the Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS) and the National EMS Advisory Council (NEMSAC) approved a National Prehospital Evidence-based Guideline Model Process for the development, implementation, and evaluation of EBGs. The Model Process recommends the use of established guideline development tools such as Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Objective. To describe the process of development of three prehospital EBGs using the National Prehospital EBG Model Process (EBG Model Process) and the GRADE EBG development tool. Methods. We conducted three unique iterations of the EBG Model Process utilizing the GRADE EBG development tool. The process involved 6 distinct and essential steps, including 1) assembling the expert panel and providing GRADE training; 2) defining the evidence-based guideline (EBG) content area and establishing the specific clinical questions to address in patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format; 3) prioritizing outcomes to facilitate systematic literature searches; 4) creating GRADE tables, or evidence profiles, for each PICO question; 5) vetting and endorsing GRADE evidence tables and drafting recommendations; and 6) synthesizing recommendations into an EMS protocol and visual algorithm. Feedback and suggestions for improvement were solicited from participants and relevant stakeholders in the process. Results. We successfully used the process to create three separate prehospital evidence-based guidelines, formatted into decision tree algorithms with levels of evidence and graded recommendations assigned to each decision point. However, the process revealed itself to be resource intensive, and most of the suggestions for improvement would require even more resource utilization. Conclusions. The National Prehospital EBG Model Process can be used to create credible, transparent, and usable prehospital evidence-based guidelines. We suggest that a centralized or regionalized approach be used to create and maintain a full set of prehospital EBGs as a means of optimizing resource use.     

Cross-sectional Analysis of Recommendations for the Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Clinical Guidelines

ObjectiveTo compare guideline recommendations for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and their level of evidence.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and websites of professional societies were searched in June 2020 using keywords such as knee or hip osteoarthritis, degenerative arthritis, guideline, and practice guideline.Study SelectionGeneral treatment guidelines for OA of the hip or knee published in English. After 461 abstracts were screened, 31 publications (17 guidelines from 10 professional societies) were included for analysis.Data ExtractionThree reviewers assessed the quality of the guidelines according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. The rating of evidence and strength of recommendation was extracted and standardized into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.Data SynthesisOf the 17 guidelines included, 6 (35%) were of high quality, 10 (59%) of moderate quality, and 1 (6%) of low quality. Guidelines published after 2017 were of good quality. Although guidelines generally agreed on a nonsurgical multimodal concept, including patient education, exercise, and weight loss in obese, some recommendations remained vague and the level of evidence varied widely. In pharmacologic treatment, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were the mainstay for pain management. Guidelines published after 2017 were more cautious in their recommendation for the use of paracetamol and strong opioids. Disagreement was observed for chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine, and intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections. Recommendations were conflicting for the use of insoles, braces, and transcutaneous electrical stimulation. The main indications for hip/knee arthroplasty were severe, persisting pain and loss of function despite nonsurgical treatment. No guideline defined a minimum time of conservative treatment before surgery.ConclusionsWe found a wide variation in evidence and strength of recommendations for OA treatment. Recommendations on when to refer patients for surgery remained unclear.     

Emergency department management of hip fractures: Development of an evidence‐based clinical guideline by literature review and consensus

The Emergency Department at Dandenong Hospital has recently developed an evidence‐based clinical guideline for the emergency department management of hip fractures. This paper will comment on the role of clinical guidelines in the emergency department, discuss the process of the development of evidence‐based guidelines for the care of hip fractures and present the evidence found during the development process. Evidence‐based recommendations for practice are made regarding pulse oximetry and supplemental oxygen, preoperative use of skin traction, thromboembolism prophylaxis, pain management including the use of nerve blocks, pressure area care, the use of indwelling urinary catheters and time to surgical repair.     

How do we know if a clinical practice guideline is good? A response to Djulbegovic and colleagues' use of fast‐and‐frugal decision trees to improve clinical care strategies

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and clinical pathways have become important tools for improving the uptake of evidence‐based care. Where CPGs are good, adherence to the recommendations within is thought to result in improved patient outcomes. However, the usefulness of such tools for improving patient important outcomes depends both on adherence to the guideline and whether or not the CPG in question is good. This begs the question of what it is that makes a CPG good? In this issue of the Journal, Djulbegovic and colleagues offer a theory to help guide the development of CPGs. The “fast‐and‐frugal tree” (FFT) heuristic theory is purported to provide the theoretical structure needed to quantitatively assess clinical guidelines in practice, something that the lack of theory to guide CPG development has precluded. In this paper, I examine the role of FFTs in providing an adequate theoretical framework for developing CPGs. In my view, positioning guideline development within the FFT framework may help with problems related to adherence. However, I believe that FTTs fall short in providing panel members with the theoretical basis needed to justify which factors should be considered when developing a CPG, how information on those factors derived from research studies should be interpreted, and how those factors should be integrated into the recommendation.     

脑卒中康复临床实践指南推荐意见研究

目的 分析国内外脑卒中康复临床实践指南的推荐意见内容,为脑卒中康复临床实践指南的制订和使用人员提供参考和建议。方法 系统检索PubMed、EMBASE、中国知网(CNKI)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、万方数据库及指南相关网站,时间为从建库之日起至2020年1月,搜集国内外脑卒中康复临床实践指南,参照世界卫生组织指南制订手册(第二版)的流程,对国内外脑卒中康复临床实践指南主要关注的康复内容、推荐意见是否基于证据、基于证据的类型及证据分级范围进行分析。结果 共纳入12篇脑卒中康复临床实践指南,其中中文1篇,英文11篇。制订国家包括美国(3篇)、英国(3篇)、加拿大(3篇)、澳大利亚(2篇)和中国(1篇),发表时间为2005年9月至2019年2月。脑卒中康复临床实践指南中质量评价采用指南研究与评价(AGREE)的有3篇(25.0%),分级系统采用GRADE的有2篇(16.7%)。指南推荐意见内容涉及领域有:认知功能障碍4个维度,推荐最多为认知功能的评估(7篇,66.7%);言语及吞咽功能障碍5个维度,推荐最多为吞咽相关并发症(10篇,83.3%);运动功能障碍6个维度,推荐最多为对痉挛的治疗(10篇,83.3%);心理及行为功能障碍4个维度,推荐最多为评估(6篇,50.0%)。4个领域推荐意见中基于的证据类型不一,多为观察性研究和/或随机对照试验。结论 推荐意见基于的证据类型和推荐强度分级不尽相同。建议脑卒中康复临床实践指南制订应该参照世界卫生组织指南制订手册的方法和流程规范推荐意见的撰写,提高康复指南的整体质量和可实施性,并进一步提高康复的质量和安全性。     

Psychosocial health care needs assessment of adult cancer patients: a consensus-based guideline

Purpose

Although recommended as an essential part of cancer care, there is limited evidence regarding the optimum approach to psychosocial health care needs assessment in this setting. To address this gap, the Cancer Journey Action Group of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) and the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO) partnered to develop consensus-based recommendations regarding the routine assessment of psychosocial and supportive care needs. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the evidence that informed the guideline and disseminate the recommendations developed by the expert panel.

Methods

Clinical practice recommendations were developed by a panel comprised of psychosocial and interdisciplinary experts. Recommendations were informed by a review of oncology clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary research, through to May 2008. Following expert consensus on the recommendations, the clinical practice guideline was externally reviewed by a purposively selected sample of national and international interdisciplinary experts.

Results

A total of nine clinical practice guidelines, three systematic reviews, and 14 primary studies were included in the review. Overall, this body of literature suggested that routine collection of psychosocial health care data has an influence on communication with oncologists and other study specific outcomes, but the evidence was limited by heterogeneity and methodological limitations. Based on the interpretation of this body of evidence by clinical experts, research methodologists, and external reviewers, 12 substantive recommendations were developed regarding the process and parameters of psychosocial needs assessment in adult cancer patients.

Conclusion

Given the limitations in the current body of evidence, there remains a need for rigorous empirical research regarding the optimal approach to psychosocial needs assessment, including the specific characteristics that influence effectiveness on patient outcomes. This guideline fills an important gap in psychosocial care, regarding the routine assessment of psychosocial health care needs.     

中国全膝关节置换术围手术期疼痛管理指南(2022)

全膝关节置换术(total knee arthroplasty, TKA)是目前治疗终末期膝关节疾病的主要方法。TKA术后常伴有中度至重度的疼痛,严重影响患者术后康复、患者满意度和总体疗效。多模式镇痛被认为是缓解TKA术后疼痛的理想方案。目前尚无TKA围手术期疼痛管理指南。经中华医学会骨科学分会关节外科学组、北京医学会骨科专业委员会关节外科学组批准及专家讨论,采用推荐意见的分级评估、制定及评价方法及国际实践指南报告规范,遴选出最为关注的20个临床问题,通过证据检索、证据质量评价及确立推荐意见和强度,采用德尔菲法进行4轮函询,最终形成20条推荐意见。本指南的制定旨在提高TKA围手术期疼痛管理的规范化和标准化。     

McMaster RARE‐Bestpractices clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of the catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome

Summary

Background

The McMaster RARE‐Bestpractices project group selected the catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS) for a pilot exercise in guideline development for a rare disease.

Objectives

The objectives of this exercise were to provide a proof of principle that guidelines can be developed for rare diseases and assist in clinical decision making for CAPS.

Patients/Methods

The GIN‐McMaster Guideline Development checklist and GRADE methodology were followed throughout the guideline process. The CAPS guideline was coordinated by a steering committee, and the guideline panel was formed with representation from all relevant stakeholder groups. Systematic reviews were performed for the key questions. To supplement the published evidence, we piloted novel methods, including use of an expert‐based evidence elicitation process and ad hoc analysis of registry data.

Results

This paper describes the CAPS guideline recommendations, including evidence appraisal and discussion of special circumstances and implementation barriers identified by the panel. Many of these recommendations are conditional, because of subgroup considerations in this heterogeneous disease, as well as variability in patient values and preferences.

Conclusions

The CAPS clinical practice guideline initiative met the objective of the successful development of a clinical practice guideline in a rare disease using GRADE methodology. We expect that clinicians caring for patients with suspected CAPS will find the guideline useful in assisting with diagnosis and management of this rare disease.

     

Management of bleeding following major trauma: an updated European guideline

Introduction

Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient, which when implemented may improve patient outcomes.

Methods

The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document presents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature.

Results

Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on coagulation support and monitoring and the appropriate use of local haemostatic measures, tourniquets, calcium and desmopressin in the bleeding trauma patient. The remaining recommendations have been reevaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies.

Conclusions

This guideline provides an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to the management of critically injured bleeding trauma patients.     

GRADE方法在呼吸机相关性肺炎诊断、预防和治疗指南制定中的应用

本文介绍VAP循证临床实践指南制定方法和注意事项,探讨GRADE方法与其他临床指南方法学研究的异同点,重点分析文献检索、证据质量和推荐强度形成方法等内容,以及如何确保正确理解和合理使用GRADE方法的具体措施。利用GRADE方法来制定VAP循证临床实践指南,可以很清楚地呈现纳入证据的质量,并明确给出推荐意见。     

通过改进挽留政策提高农村和边远地区卫生人力的可及性:WHO2010全球政策建议解读

农村和边远地区卫生人力资源不足是世界各国普遍关注的卫生问题之一,严重影响卫生公平的实现.对此,WHO提出全球政策建议——通过改进挽留政策提高农村和边远地区卫生人力的可及性.本文重点从循证医学方法学和指南制定角度,对该政策指南制定的关键步骤进行解读,主要包括背景及问题的提出、证据的检索与遴选、证据质量分级与推荐方案形成,从而进一步探讨卫生决策过程中如何正确认识、获得、评价与应用当前可得的研究证据,以及如何基于证据,利用GRADE系统做出科学可行的推荐,强调证据及GRADE系统在循证卫生决策中的重要作用.     

Developing clinical practice guidelines for spinal cord medicine. Lessons learned

This article describes the process used by the Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for managing and treating individuals with spinal cord injury and provides important information on lessons learned and the potential problems to avoid. Issues to consider during the guideline development process include topic selection and explication, methods for selecting the panel chair and panel members, the writing of recommendations and supporting scientific rationales, peer-reviewing guidelines, and the process for disseminating, implementing, and evaluating guidelines. The applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of available evidence and guideline recommendation grading systems and issues arising from the lack of scientific evidence supporting particular recommendations are also discussed.