Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-qdp55 Total loading time: 0.312 Render date: 2021-12-04T15:11:56.375Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

UPDATING CLINICAL PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: IS IT WORTHWHILE AND WHEN?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2012

Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); University of Cambridgegl290@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Steven Barnes
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Heather Stegenga
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Suzi Peden
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Bruce Campbell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry

Abstract

Background: Keeping clinical practice recommendations up-to-date with a continually evolving evidence base presents challenges. Resources required to update recommendations compete with those needed to evaluate newer treatments.

Methods: We describe an approach developed by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for updating clinical practice recommendations for new interventional procedures and we evaluate relevant initial experience of using this system. Depending on whether evidence for a procedure is judged adequate or inadequate for safety and efficacy, use in clinical practice is usually recommended with either “normal” or “special” arrangements for patient consent, data collection and institutional oversight, respectively. We examined whether differences in the state of the evidence at the initial and the updated appraisal of procedures were associated with changed recommendations.

Results: Since 2008, updating of recommendations focuses on procedures with initially inadequate evidence. “Special arrangements” recommendations about eleven procedures were updated after 3.3–6.5 years (median, 5.3 years), and recommendations for six were changed to “normal arrangements.” Overall, procedures with changed (“special-to-normal”) recommendations had a greater increase in the number of patients included in observational studies published since the initial guidance.

Conclusions: Procedures with changed (“special-to-normal”) recommendations generally had greater increases in their evidence base. Although uncertainties about optimal methods for keeping evidence-based recommendations up-to-date remain, this experience should be useful to policy makers in developing processes for prioritizing scarce resources for updating clinical practice recommendations. Further studies are needed about the value placed on “updated” recommendations by clinicians, policy-makers, and patients.

Type
METHODS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bastian, H, Glasziou, P, Chalmers, I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Campbell, WB, Barnes, SJ, Kirby, RA, Willett, SL, Wortley, S, Lyratzopoulos, G. Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:101107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Ceulen, RP, Sommer, A, Vernooy, K. Microembolism during foam sclerotherapy of varicose veins. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:15251526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair and outcome in patients unfit for open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 2): Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:21872192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:21792186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.French, SD, McDonald, S, McKenzie, JE, Green, SE. Investing in updating: How do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated? BMC Med Res Method. 2005;5:33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Garritty, C, Tsertsvadze, A, Tricco, AC, Sampson, M, Moher, D. Updating systematic reviews: An International Survey. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9914. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hopewell, S, Loudon, K, Clarke, M, Moher, R, French, S, Scholten, R, Eisinga, A. Development of a decision tool for updating Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Colloquium Abstract Journal. http://www.imbi.uni-freidburg.de/OJS/cca/index.php?journal=cca&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=7004 (accessed December 12, 2008).Google Scholar
9.Lopes, RD, Hafley, GE, Allen, KB, et al. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:235244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Programme. Process guide, 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/ipprocessguide?domedia=1&mid=96186DBC-19B9-E0B5-D4B7ABF517DFC88B.Google Scholar
11.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Guidance 343: Endoscopic saphenous vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: Guidance. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/IPG343/Guidance/pdf/English.Google Scholar
12.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Programme. Methods Guide, 2007. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/70C/85/IPMethodGuideforweb180607.pdf.Google Scholar
13.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Published interventional procedures. Guidance list. http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/IP/.Google Scholar
14.Sampson, M, Shojania, KG, McGowan, J, et al. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:755762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Shekelle, P, Newberry, S, Maglione, M, et al. Assessment of the need to update comparative effectiveness reviews: Report of an initial rapid program assessment (2005–2009) [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2009.Google Scholar
16.Shekelle, PG, Ortiz, E, Rhodes, S, et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: How quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA. 2001;286:14611467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Shojania, KG, Sampson, M, Ansari, MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lyratzopoulos Online Supplement

Lyratzopoulos Online Supplement

Download Lyratzopoulos Online Supplement(File)
File 47 KB
13
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

UPDATING CLINICAL PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: IS IT WORTHWHILE AND WHEN?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

UPDATING CLINICAL PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: IS IT WORTHWHILE AND WHEN?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

UPDATING CLINICAL PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: IS IT WORTHWHILE AND WHEN?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *