Entwicklung von Kriterien für die prospektive Einschätzung des Aktualisierungsbedarfs von Leitlinienempfehlungen: AGIL-Kriterien

• DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2023.11.006
• Publication Date: 2024-01-21T08:29:43Z
• Authors: Waldemar Siemens; Sonja Mahler; Corinna Schaefer; Monika Nothacker; Vanessa Piechotta; Peggy Prien; Sabine Schüler; Sabine Schwarz; Susanne Blödt; Iris Thielemann; Thomas Harder; Philipp Kapp; Valérie Labonté; Joerg J. Meerpohl; Cordula Braun

BackgroundEvidence-based guideline and vaccination recommendations should continuously be updated to appropriately support health care decisions. However, resources for updating guidelines are often limited.The aim of this project was develop a list criteria the prospective assessment need individual or recommendations, which can applied from time update is finalised.MethodsIn article we describe development AGIL (Assessment Guidelines Updating Recommendations). The were developed by experienced scientists experts in field multi-step process. five steps included: 1) an initial team; 2) online survey on version list; 3) revision based results survey; 4) workshop at EbM Congress 2023; 5) creation 1.0 results.ResultsThe included following three criteria: relevance question availability new relevant evidence, impact potentially evidence.The response rate fully completed questionnaires 31.0 % (N = 195; 630 contacted email). For 90.3 (n 176) respondents, all essential aspects assessing recommendations. More than quarters respondents rated importance as "very important" "important" (criteria 1–3: 75.3 %, 86.1 85.2 %) – with exception criterion 1 comprehensibility comprehensible" "comprehensible" 58.4 75.9 78.5 %).The generally confirmed their two sub-questions. incorporation feedback resulted (version 1.0), recapping: regarding a) PICO components b) other factors, e. g. epidemiological aspects; evidence health-related benefits harms decision feasibility, acceptability; certainty recommendation present recommendation, strength recommendation.DiscussionThe moderate may have limited its representativeness. Nevertheless, consider satisfactory research context. inclusion many supports quality results.ConclusionsThe provide structured guidance evidence-based implementation evaluation test planned.