10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Strategies for eliciting and synthesizing evidence for guidelines in rare diseases

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Rare diseases are a global public health priority. Though each disease is rare, when taken together the thousands of known rare diseases cause significant morbidity and mortality, impact quality of life, and confer a social and economic burden on families and communities. These conditions are, by their nature, encountered very infrequently by individual clinicians, who may feel unprepared to address their diagnosis and treatment. Clinical practice guidelines are necessary to support clinical and policy decisions. However, creating guidelines for rare diseases presents specific challenges, including a paucity of high certainty evidence to inform panel recommendations.

          Methods

          This paper draws from the authors’ experience in the development of clinical practice guidelines for three rare diseases: hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome.

          Results

          We have summarized a number of strategies for eliciting and synthesizing evidence that are compatible with the rigorous, internationally accepted standards for guideline development set out by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. These strategies include: use of pre-existing and ad hoc qualitative research, use of systematic observation forms, use of registry data, and thoughtful use of indirect evidence. Their use in three real guideline development efforts, as well as their theoretical underpinnings, are discussed. Avenues for future research to improve clinical practice guideline creation for rare diseases – and any disease affected by a relative lack of evidence - are also identified.

          Conclusions

          Rigorous clinical practice guidelines are needed to improve the care of the millions of people worldwide who suffer from rare diseases. Innovative evidence elicitation and synthesis methods will benefit not only the rare disease community, but also individuals with common diseases who have rare presentations, suffer rare complications, or require nascent therapies. Further refinement and improved uptake of these innovative methods should lead to higher quality clinical practice guidelines in rare diseases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.

          Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

            Development of clinical practice guidelines involves making trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies. Although the relative value of health states to patients should provide the basis for these trade-offs, few guidelines have systematically summarized the relevant evidence. We conducted a systematic review relating to values and preferences of patients considering antithrombotic therapy. We included studies examining patient preferences for alternative approaches to antithrombotic prophylaxis and studies that examined, in the context of antithrombotic prophylaxis or treatment, how patients value alternative health states and experiences with treatment. We conducted a systematic search and compiled structured summaries of the results. Steps in the process that involved judgment were conducted in duplicate. We identified 48 eligible studies. Sixteen dealt with atrial fibrillation, five with VTE, four with stroke or myocardial infarction prophylaxis, six with thrombolysis in acute stroke or myocardial infarction, and 17 with burden of antithrombotic treatment. Patient values and preferences regarding thromboprophylaxis treatment appear to be highly variable. Participant responses may depend on their prior experience with the treatments or health outcomes considered as well as on the methods used for preference elicitation. It should be standard for clinical practice guidelines to conduct systematic reviews of patient values and preferences in the specific content area.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical trials and rare diseases: a way out of a conundrum.

              Currently, clinical trials tend to be individually funded and applicants must include a power calculation in their grant request. However, conventional levels of statistical precision are unlikely to be obtainable prospectively if the trial is required to evaluate treatment of a rare disease. This means that clinicians treating such diseases remain in ignorance and must form their judgments solely on the basis of (potentially biased) observational studies experience, and anecdote. Since some unbiased evidence is clearly better than none, this state of affairs should not continue. However, conventional (frequentist) confidence limits are unlikely to exclude a null result, even when treatments differ substantially. Bayesian methods utilise all available data to calculate probabilities that may be extrapolated directly to clinical practice. Funding bodies should therefore fund a repertoire of small trials, which need have no predetermined end, alongside standard larger studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (905) 521-2100 , mpai@mcmaster.ca
                yeungcht@mcmaster.ca
                ea32@aub.edu.lb
                andreajdarzi@gmail.com
                hillis@HHSC.CA
                legauk2@mcmaster.ca
                meerpohl@cochrane.de
                santesna@mcmaster.ca
                domenica.taruscio@iss.it
                verhovm@mcmaster.ca
                holger.schunemann@mcmaster.ca
                iorioa@mcmaster.ca
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                28 March 2019
                28 March 2019
                2019
                : 19
                : 67
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, McMaster University, ; Hamilton, Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.418383.5, Hamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program, ; Hamilton, Canada
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9801, GRID grid.22903.3a, American University of Beirut GRADE Center, ; Beirut, Lebanon
                [4 ]GRID grid.5963.9, Cochrane Germany, Medical Center, , University of Freiburg, ; Freiburg, Germany
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9120 6856, GRID grid.416651.1, National Center for Rare Diseases, , Istituto Superiore di Sanità, ; Rome, Italy
                [6 ]Cochrane Canada, Hamilton, Canada
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0303 0713, GRID grid.413613.2, Hamilton General Hospital, ; Room 1-270A, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2 Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6053-689X
                Article
                713
                10.1186/s12874-019-0713-0
                6437842
                30922227
                32c02b94-c6db-4865-89c9-087825c006ad
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 4 January 2018
                : 19 March 2019
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Medicine
                clinical practice guideline,evidence-based medicine,health care quality, access, and evaluation,rare diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article