Living systematic reviews

4. Living guideline recommendations

Living Systematic Review Network

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of “living guidelines” realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)47-53
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume91
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Living Wills
Workflow
Practice Guidelines
Publications
Research

Keywords

  • Living guidelines
  • Living systematic review
  • Prioritizing recommendations
  • Updating guidelines
  • Updating systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Living systematic reviews : 4. Living guideline recommendations. / Living Systematic Review Network.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 91, 01.11.2017, p. 47-53.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Living Systematic Review Network. / Living systematic reviews : 4. Living guideline recommendations. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017 ; Vol. 91. pp. 47-53.
@article{1586e1eea63a42f3812b0d4b08fa777c,
title = "Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations",
abstract = "While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of “living guidelines” realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.",
keywords = "Living guidelines, Living systematic review, Prioritizing recommendations, Updating guidelines, Updating systematic reviews",
author = "{Living Systematic Review Network} and Akl, {Elie A.} and Meerpohl, {Joerg J.} and Julian Elliott and Kahale, {Lara A.} and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.} and Thomas Agoritsas and John Hilton and Caroline Perron and Elie Akl and Rebecca Hodder and Charlotte Pestridge and Lauren Albrecht and Tanya Horsley and Joanne Platt and Rebecca Armstrong and Nguyen, {Phi Hung} and Robert Plovnick and Anneliese Arno and Noah Ivers and Gail Quinn and Agnes Au and Renea Johnston and Gabriel Rada and Matthew Bagg and Arwel Jones and Philippe Ravaud and Catherine Boden and Lara Kahale and Bernt Richter and Isabelle Boisvert and Homa Keshavarz and Rebecca Ryan and Linn Brandt and Kolakowsky-Hayner, {Stephanie A.} and Dina Salama and Alexandra Brazinova and Nagraj, {Sumanth Kumbargere} and Georgia Salanti and Rachelle Buchbinder and Toby Lasserson and Lina Santaguida and Chris Champion and Rebecca Lawrence and Nancy Santesso and Jackie Chandler and Zbigniew Les and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.} and Andreas Charidimou and Roger Chou and Mark Helfand",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "47--53",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Living systematic reviews

T2 - 4. Living guideline recommendations

AU - Living Systematic Review Network

AU - Akl, Elie A.

AU - Meerpohl, Joerg J.

AU - Elliott, Julian

AU - Kahale, Lara A.

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Agoritsas, Thomas

AU - Hilton, John

AU - Perron, Caroline

AU - Akl, Elie

AU - Hodder, Rebecca

AU - Pestridge, Charlotte

AU - Albrecht, Lauren

AU - Horsley, Tanya

AU - Platt, Joanne

AU - Armstrong, Rebecca

AU - Nguyen, Phi Hung

AU - Plovnick, Robert

AU - Arno, Anneliese

AU - Ivers, Noah

AU - Quinn, Gail

AU - Au, Agnes

AU - Johnston, Renea

AU - Rada, Gabriel

AU - Bagg, Matthew

AU - Jones, Arwel

AU - Ravaud, Philippe

AU - Boden, Catherine

AU - Kahale, Lara

AU - Richter, Bernt

AU - Boisvert, Isabelle

AU - Keshavarz, Homa

AU - Ryan, Rebecca

AU - Brandt, Linn

AU - Kolakowsky-Hayner, Stephanie A.

AU - Salama, Dina

AU - Brazinova, Alexandra

AU - Nagraj, Sumanth Kumbargere

AU - Salanti, Georgia

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

AU - Lasserson, Toby

AU - Santaguida, Lina

AU - Champion, Chris

AU - Lawrence, Rebecca

AU - Santesso, Nancy

AU - Chandler, Jackie

AU - Les, Zbigniew

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Charidimou, Andreas

AU - Chou, Roger

AU - Helfand, Mark

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of “living guidelines” realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.

AB - While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of “living guidelines” realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.

KW - Living guidelines

KW - Living systematic review

KW - Prioritizing recommendations

KW - Updating guidelines

KW - Updating systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028968915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028968915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009

M3 - Review article

VL - 91

SP - 47

EP - 53

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -