OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. PARTICIPANTS: Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding. RESULTS: We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.
An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- medicína založená na důkazech * MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
OBJECTIVE: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework. RESULTS: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process. CONCLUSION: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * epidemiologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- publikace MeSH
- Světová zdravotnická organizace MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Čína MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. RESULTS: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. CONCLUSION: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * epidemiologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- veřejné zdravotnictví * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
