Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):304-10. doi: 10.1513/pats.201208-067ST.
Professional societies, like many other organizations, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the last of a series of 14 articles that methodologists and researchers from around the world have prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases on how to achieve this. We updated a review of the literature on guideline adaptation, evaluation, and updating, focusing on four key questions.
In this review we addressed the following questions. (1) Which high-quality guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are available? (2) How should guidelines be adapted to the user's context and culture? (3) How should the use of guidelines be evaluated in clinical practice? and (4) How should guidelines be efficiently kept up-to-date? We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. We relied on a literature review published in 2006 and on a manual produced by the ADAPTE Collaboration to inform our judgments, as well as our collective experience and workshop discussions.
Guideline adaptation can be seen as an alternative to de novo development and as part of an implementation process, taking into consideration the user's own context. A systematic approach should be followed to ensure high quality of the resulting guidance. On the topic of COPD, many guidelines are available. Guidelines of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease and of the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society are particularly well-suited for adaptation. The adaptation process includes (1) definition of specific questions that need to be answered by the guideline; (2) assessment of guideline quality; (3) assessment of the clinical content, validity, acceptability, applicability, and transferability of the recommendations; and (4) decisions about adoption or adaptation of the recommendations. The use of the guidelines in practice can be measured with performance indicators. Adverse effects of strict adherence to guideline recommendations should be prevented, in particular when the improvement of patient outcomes is unclear. COPD guidelines should be updated at least every 2 years. Collaboration between COPD guideline developers is recommended to prevent duplication of effort.
专业学会与许多其他组织一样,已认识到需要采用更严格的流程,以确保医疗保健建议基于现有最佳研究证据。这是来自世界各地的方法学家和研究人员为指导方针制定者准备的 14 篇系列文章中的最后一篇,旨在就如何实现这一目标为呼吸和其他疾病的指导方针制定者提供建议。我们更新了对指导方针改编、评估和更新的文献综述,重点关注四个关键问题。
在本次综述中,我们针对以下问题进行了讨论。(1)有哪些关于慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的高质量指南?(2)应如何使指南适应使用者的背景和文化?(3)应如何在临床实践中评估指南的使用?(4)应如何有效地更新指南?我们自己并未进行系统评价,而是依赖于 2006 年发表的文献综述和 ADAPTE 合作组织编制的手册来提供信息,同时还参考了我们的集体经验和研讨会讨论。
指南改编可以被视为从头开始开发的替代方案,也是实施过程的一部分,同时考虑到使用者自身的背景。应遵循系统方法以确保产生的指导具有高质量。关于 COPD,有许多指南可用。全球慢性阻塞性肺疾病倡议、美国胸科学会和欧洲呼吸学会的指南特别适合改编。改编过程包括(1)确定需要由指南回答的具体问题;(2)评估指南的质量;(3)评估建议的临床内容、有效性、可接受性、适用性和可转移性;(4)决定是否采用或改编建议。可以使用绩效指标来衡量指南在实践中的使用情况。应防止严格遵循指南建议带来的不良影响,特别是当改善患者结局不明确时。COPD 指南应至少每 2 年更新一次。建议 COPD 指南制定者之间开展合作,以避免重复工作。