Questions and health outcomes prioritization for the development of a COVID-19 dental clinical practice guideline: A case study
Rationale, Aims and Objectives In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical. The guideline development process includes prioritization of the guideline topic, questions and health outcomes. This case study describes the application of a new m...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau) |
| Repositorio: | r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com:p7682 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com/Publicaciones/ProdCientif/PublicacionFrw.aspx?id=7682 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85123614873&doi=10.1111%2fjep.13658&partnerID=40&md5=8369a8a5de8f0903ed4362ef2ffd94fd |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | COVID-19 evidence-based practice healthcare outcomes practice guideline |
| Sumario: | Rationale, Aims and Objectives In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical. The guideline development process includes prioritization of the guideline topic, questions and health outcomes. This case study describes the application of a new methodology to prioritize questions and rate the importance of health outcomes for a COVID-19 dental guideline. Methods Panel members rated the topic and the questions' overall importance, using a 9-point scale (1 = least important; 9 = most important). In addition, they rated six criteria if multiple questions received the same overall importance rating: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. Panellists also rated the importance of each outcome, defined with health outcome descriptors, using a 9-point scale and the utility of health outcomes on a visual analogue scale. The correlation between each criterion and overall question importance was tested by Spearman correlation coefficient. Results Of seven topics, four were rated as high priority and three were rated as important, but not of high priority. Thirty-six percent of the questions (18/50) were rated as high priority to address in the guideline and 64% (32/50) were rated as an important question but not of high priority. Of the 11 outcomes, 72.7% were rated as critical for decision making. The mean utility rating was 0.57 (SD 0.32), with a minimum mean rating of 0.16 and a maximum of 0.76 (SD 0.23). Conclusion This case study demonstrated that this approach provides a rigorous and transparent methodology to conduct the prioritizations of guideline topics, questions and health outcomes. |
|---|