INTRODUCTION: The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. This guidance refines the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. METHODS: Through iterative discussions, online meetings and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT Project Group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned Adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE Working Group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval. RESULTS: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing EtDs when available or developing new EtDs if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others. CONCLUSION: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over six years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources.

• Klíčová slova
• GRADE, adaptation, adolopment, adoption, contextualization, global health, guidelines, research waste, systematic reviews,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

• MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• přehledová literatura jako téma MeSH
• směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma * MeSH
• systematický přehled jako téma metody   MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• úvodníky MeSH

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

• Klíčová slova
• COVID-19, Health information, Knowledge mobilization, Plain language recommendation, RCT, Vaccine recommendations,
• MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• informace pro uživatele zdravotní péče * MeSH
• jazyk (prostředek komunikace) MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• pochopení * MeSH
• vakcíny proti COVID-19 MeSH
• vzdělávání pacientů jako téma * MeSH
• zdraví - znalosti, postoje, praxe * MeSH
• Check Tag
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Spojené státy americké MeSH
• Názvy látek
• vakcíny proti COVID-19 MeSH

• Publikační typ
• tisková chyba MeSH

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of plain language compared with standard language versions of COVID-19 recommendations specific to child health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial with nested qualitative component. Trial was conducted online, internationally. Parents or legal guardians (≥18 years) of a child (<18 years) were eligible. Participants were randomized to receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) or standard (SLV) verison of a COVID-19 recommendation specific to child health. Primary outcome was understanding. Secondary outcomes included: preference, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, and intended behavior. Interviews explored perceptions and preferences for each format. RESULTS: Between July and August 2022, 295 parents were randomized; 241 (81.7%) completed the study (intervention n = 121, control n = 120). Mean understanding scores were significantly different between groups (PLR 3.96 [standard deviation (SD) 2.02], SLV 3.33 [SD 1.88], P = 0.014). Overall participants preferred the PLR version: mean rating 5.05/7.00 (95% CI 4.81, 5.29). Interviews (n = 12 parents) highlighted their preference for the PLR and provided insight on elements to enhance future knowledge mobilization of health recommendations. CONCLUSION: Compared to SLVs, parents preferred PLRs and better understood the recommendation. Guideline developers should strive to use plain language to increase understanding, uptake, and implementation of evidence by the public.

• Klíčová slova
• COVID-19, Child health, Guideline, Health recommendations, Knowledge mobilization, Parents, Plain language,
• MeSH
• COVID-19 * MeSH
• dítě MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• jazyk (prostředek komunikace) MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mladiství MeSH
• rodiče * MeSH
• sběr dat MeSH
• Check Tag
• dítě MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mladiství MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH

OBJECTIVES: This Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) concept article offers systematic reviewers, guideline authors, and other users of evidence assistance in addressing randomized trial situations in which interventions or comparators differ from those in the target people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. To clarify what GRADE considers under indirectness of interventions and comparators, we focus on a particular example: when comparator arm participants receive some or all aspects of the intervention management strategy (treatment switching). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An interdisciplinary panel of the GRADE working group members developed this concept article through an iterative review of examples in multiple teleconferences, small group sessions, and e-mail correspondence. After presentation at a GRADE working group meeting in November 2022, attendees approved the final concept paper, which we support with examples from systematic reviews and individual trials. RESULTS: In the presence of safeguards against risk of bias, trials provide unbiased estimates of the effect of an intervention on the people as enrolled, the interventions as implemented, the comparators as implemented, and the outcomes as measured. Within the GRADE framework, differences in the people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes elements between the review or guideline recommendation targets and the trials as implemented constitute issues of indirectness. The intervention or comparator group management strategy as implemented, when it differs from the target comparator, constitutes one potential source of indirectness: Indirectness of interventions and comparators-comparator group receipt of the intervention constitutes a specific subcategory of said indirectness. The proportion of comparator arm participants that received the intervention and the apparent magnitude of effect bear on whether one should rate down, and if one does, to what extent. CONCLUSION: Treatment switching and other differences between review or guideline recommendation target interventions and comparators vs. interventions and comparators as implemented in otherwise relevant trials are best considered issues of indirectness.

• Klíčová slova
• Applicability, Certainty of evidence, Cross-over, External validity, GRADE, Treatment switching,
• MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• medicína založená na důkazech * MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma * MeSH
• zkreslení výsledků (epidemiologie) * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.

• Klíčová slova
• Clinical, Collaboration, Delphi, Development, Glossary, Guideline, International, Practice, Validation,
• MeSH
• delfská metoda MeSH
• komunikace * MeSH
• konsensus MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• přehledy MeSH

• MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• systematický přehled jako téma MeSH
• výzkumný projekt * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is an international research organization and collaborative network hosted in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University Of Adelaide, South Australia. Now in its 25th year of activity, JBI is concerned with improving health outcomes in communities globally by promoting and supporting the use of the best available evidence to inform decision making in health policy and practice. The JBI Model of Evidence Based Healthcare, developed in the early 2000s, represents an articulation of the evidence ecosystem and the pragmatic approach required to navigate the complexity of health systems globally to improve health outcomes. The programs of JBI are aligned with the JBI Model and are representative of the supportive structures that facilitate the pragmatic realization of each of the elements of evidence based healthcare.

• Klíčová slova
• Evidence based healthcare, Evidence ecosystem, Global health, Implementation, Synthesis, Transfer,
• MeSH
• ekosystém * MeSH
• lékařská praxe založená na důkazech * MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• zdravotní politika MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

Evidence synthesis is critical in evidence-based healthcare and is a core program of JBI. JBI evidence synthesis is characterised by a pluralistic view of what constitutes evidence and is underpinned by a pragmatic ethos to facilitate the use of evidence to inform practice and policy. This second paper in this series provides a descriptive overview of the JBI evidence synthesis toolkit with reference to resources for 11 different types of reviews. Unique methodologies such as qualitative syntheses, mixed methods reviews, and scoping reviews are highlighted. Key features include standardised and collaborative processes for development of methodologies and a broad range of tailored resources to facilitate the conduct of a JBI evidence synthesis, including appraisal and data extraction tools, software to support the conduct of a systematic review and an intensive systematic review training program. JBI is one of the leading international protagonists for evidence synthesis, providing those who want to answer health-related questions with a toolkit of resources to synthesize the evidence.

• Klíčová slova
• Appraisal tools, Education, Evidence synthesis, Scoping review, Systematic review, Systematic review software,
• MeSH
• lékařská praxe založená na důkazech * MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• postup MeSH
• software * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• systematický přehled MeSH