TY - JOUR
T1 - Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1–2 weeks)
T2 - a GRADE concept paper
AU - Akl, Elie A.
AU - Morgan, Rebecca L.
AU - Rooney, Andrew A.
AU - Beverly, Brandiese
AU - Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal
AU - Agarwal, Arnav
AU - Alper, Brian S.
AU - Alva-Diaz, Carlos
AU - Amato, Laura
AU - Ansari, Mohammed T.
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Chu, Derek K.
AU - Dahm, Philipp
AU - Darzi, Andrea J.
AU - Falavigna, Maicon
AU - Gartlehner, Gerald
AU - Pardo-Hernandez, Hector
AU - King, Valerie
AU - Klugarová, Jitka
AU - Langendam, M. W.Miranda
AU - Lockwood, Craig
AU - Mammen, Manoj
AU - Mathioudakis, Alexander G.
AU - McCaul, Michael
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg J.
AU - Minozzi, Silvia
AU - Mustafa, Reem A.
AU - Nonino, Francesco
AU - Piggott, Thomas
AU - Qaseem, Amir
AU - Riva, John
AU - Rodin, Rachel
AU - Sekercioglu, Nigar
AU - Skoetz, Nicole
AU - Traversy, Gregory
AU - Thayer, Kris
AU - Schünemann, Holger
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s)
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1–2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Results: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. Conclusion: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.
AB - Objectives: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1–2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Results: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. Conclusion: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.
KW - GRADE
KW - Pandemic
KW - Trustworthy guideline
KW - Urgent recommendation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85093955598&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.037
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.037
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 33010401
AN - SCOPUS:85093955598
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 129
SP - 1
EP - 11
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -