About: Development of rapid guidelines: 1. Systematic survey of current practices and methods

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Development of rapid guidelines: 1. Systematic survey of current practices and methods Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	Development of rapid guidelines: 1. Systematic survey of current practices and methods
Creator	Zhang, Yuan Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Itziar Falavigna, Maicon Ivanova, Liudmila Sakhia, Faria Santesso, Nancy Wiercioch, Wojtek Schünemann, Holger Florez, Iván Kowalski, Sergio Morgan, Rebecca
Source	Medline; PMC
abstract	BACKGROUND: Guidelines in the healthcare field generally should contain evidence-based recommendations to inform healthcare decisions. Guidelines often require 2 years or more to develop, but certain circumstances necessitate the development of rapid guidelines (RGs) in a short period of time. Upholding methodological rigor while meeting the reduced development timeframe presents a challenge for developing RGs. Our objective was to review current practices and standards for the development of RGs. This is the first of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic survey of methods manuals and published RGs to identify reasons for the development of RGs. Data sources included existing guideline manuals, published RGs, Trip Medical Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and communication with guideline developers until February 2018. RESULTS: We identified 46 guidelines that used a shortened timeframe for their development. Nomenclature describing RGs varied across organisations, wherein the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced ‘Interim Guidelines’, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom developed ‘Short Clinical Guidelines’, and WHO provided ‘Rapid Advice’. The rationale for RGs included response to emergencies, rapid increases in cases of a condition or disease severity, or new evidence regarding treatment. In general, the methods to assess the quality of evidence, the consensus process and the management of the conflict of interest were not always clear. While we identified another 11 RGs from other institutions, there was no reference to timeframe and reasons for conducting a RG. The three organisations mentioned above provide guidance for the development of RGs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of standardised nomenclature and definitions regarding RGs and there is inconsistency in the methods described in manuals and in RG. It is therefore important that all RGs provide a detailed and transparent description of their methods in order for readers and end-users to be able to assess their quality and validate their findings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0327-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
has issue date	2018-07-13(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1186/s12961-018-0327-8
bibo:pmid	30005712
has license	cc-by
sha1sum (hex)	dd916c3ebb297ef2b6a36f7d6f33bac8ed1198b8
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0327-8
resource representing a document's title	Development of rapid guidelines: 1. Systematic survey of current practices and methods
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC6044042
has PubMed identifier	30005712
schema:publication	Health Res Policy Syst
resource representing a document's body	covid:dd916c3ebb297ef2b6a36f7d6f33bac8ed1198b8#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'PRACTICES' named entity 'RGs' named entity 'healthcare' named entity 'field' named entity 'systematic' named entity 'Disease Control' named entity 'development' named entity 'healthcare' named entity 'February' named entity 'rapid' named entity 'RGs' named entity 'methodological' named entity 'GUIDELINE' named entity 'UNITED STATES CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL' named entity 'READERS' named entity 'BASED' named entity 'CONSENSUS' named entity 'DEVELOPERS' named entity 'CERTAIN' named entity 'FINDINGS' named entity 'ASSESS' named entity 'CARE' named entity 'PROCESS' named entity 'SHORT PERIOD' named entity 'CONCLUSIONS' named entity 'TREATMENT' named entity 'INCLUDED' named entity 'COMMUNICATION' named entity 'CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION' named entity 'IMPORTANT' named entity 'DECISIONS' named entity 'DEVELOPMENT' named entity 'ADDRESSING' named entity 'USERS' named entity 'REVIEW' named entity 'SURVEY' named entity 'END' named entity 'MEETING' named entity 'PRACTICES' named entity 'HEALTHCARE' named entity 'REDUCED' named entity 'MEDICAL DATABASE' named entity 'THEIR' named entity 'ORDER' named entity 'REFERENCE' named entity 'ARTICLES' named entity 'PERIOD OF TIME' named entity 'MEDLINE' named entity 'TO IDENTIFY' named entity 'USED' named entity 'DESCRIBING' named entity 'STANDARDS' named entity 'RAPID' named entity 'CURRENT' named entity 'METHODS' named entity 'DESCRIBED' named entity 'PUBLISHED' named entity 'LACK' named entity 'INCREASES' named entity 'DISEASE SEVERITY' named entity 'PRESENTS' named entity 'TRIP' named entity 'NOMENCLATURE' named entity 'DESCRIPTION' named entity 'CHALLENGE' named entity 'RAPID' named entity 'CLEAR' named entity 'UNITED KINGDOM' named entity 'INSTITUTE' named entity 'RESULTS' named entity 'IS A'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software