OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines are often created through collaboration among organizations. Use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.

The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.

This guideline was developed to identify evidence-based best practices in haemophilia care delivery, and discuss the range of care providers and services that are most important to optimize outcomes for persons with haemophilia (PWH) across the United States. The guideline was developed following specific methods described in detail in this supplement and based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach). Direct evidence from published literature and the haemophilia community, as well as indirect evidence from other chronic diseases, were reviewed, synthesized and applied to create evidence-based recommendations. The Guideline panel suggests that the integrated care model be used over non-integrated care models for PWH (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty in the evidence). For PWH with inhibitors and those at high risk for inhibitor development, the same recommendation was graded as strong, with moderate certainty in the evidence. The panel suggests that a haematologist, a specialized haemophilia nurse, a physical therapist, a social worker and round-the-clock access to a specialized coagulation laboratory be part of the integrated care team, over an integrated care team that does not include all of these components (conditional recommendation, very low certainty in the evidence). Based on available evidence, the integrated model of care in its current structure, is suggested for optimal care of PWH. There is a need for further appropriately designed studies that address unanswered questions about specific outcomes and the optimal structure of the integrated care delivery model in haemophilia.

BACKGROUND: Haemophilia care is commonly provided via multidisciplinary specialized management. To date, there has been no systematic assessment of the impact of haemophilia care delivery models on patient-important outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of published studies assessing the effects of the integrated care model for persons with haemophilia (PWH). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to April 22, 2015, contacted experts in the field, and reviewed reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized studies of PWH or carriers, focusing mainly on the assessment of care models on delivery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators independently screened title, abstract, and full text of retrieved articles for inclusion. Risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was assessed using Cochrane's ACROBAT-NRSI tool and GRADE respectively. Relative risks, mean differences, proportions, and means and their variability were calculated as appropriate. RESULTS: 27 non-randomized studies were included: eight comparative and 19 non-comparative studies. We found low- to very low-quality evidence that in comparison to other models of care, integrated care may reduce mortality, hospitalizations and emergency room visits, may lead to fewer missed days of school and work, and may increase knowledge seeking. CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive review found low- to very low-quality evidence from a limited number of non-randomized studies assessing the impact of haemophilia care models on some patient-important outcomes. While the available evidence suggests that adoption of the integrated care model may provide benefit to PWH, further high-quality research in the field is needed.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 1%-2% of women develop cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2-3 (CIN 2-3) annually worldwide. The prevalence among women living with HIV is higher, at 10%. If left untreated, CIN 2-3 can progress to cervical cancer. WHO has previously published guidelines for strategies to screen and treat precancerous cervical lesions and for treatment of histologically confirmed CIN 2-3. METHODS: Guidelines were developed using the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. A multidisciplinary guideline panel was created. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and observational studies were conducted. Evidence tables and Evidence to Recommendations Tables were prepared and presented to the panel. RESULTS: There are nine recommendations for screen-and-treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer, including the HPV test, cytology, and visual inspection with acetic acid. There are seven for treatment of CIN with cryotherapy, loop electrosurgical excision procedure, and cold knife conization. CONCLUSION: Recommendations have been produced on the basis of the best available evidence. However, high-quality evidence was not available. Such evidence is needed, in particular for screen-and-treat strategies that are relevant to low- and middle-income countries.

Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is characterised by the presence of immune responses to previously acquired Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection without clinical evidence of active tuberculosis (TB). Here we report evidence-based guidelines from the World Health Organization for a public health approach to the management of LTBI in high risk individuals in countries with high or middle upper income and TB incidence of <100 per 100 000 per year. The guidelines strongly recommend systematic testing and treatment of LTBI in people living with HIV, adult and child contacts of pulmonary TB cases, patients initiating anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment, patients receiving dialysis, patients preparing for organ or haematological transplantation, and patients with silicosis. In prisoners, healthcare workers, immigrants from high TB burden countries, homeless persons and illicit drug users, systematic testing and treatment of LTBI is conditionally recommended, according to TB epidemiology and resource availability. Either commercial interferon-gamma release assays or Mantoux tuberculin skin testing could be used to test for LTBI. Chest radiography should be performed before LTBI treatment to rule out active TB disease. Recommended treatment regimens for LTBI include: 6 or 9 month isoniazid; 12 week rifapentine plus isoniazid; 3-4 month isoniazid plus rifampicin; or 3-4 month rifampicin alone.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic lung disease is exacerbated by comorbid psychiatric issues and treatment of depression may improve disease symptoms. We sought to add to the literature as to whether depression is associated with pulmonary function in healthy adults. METHODS: In 2551 healthy adults from New York State, we studied the association of depression via the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D) scale score and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) using general linear models and a cross-sectional design. RESULT: We identified statistically significant inverse trends in FEV1, FVC, FEV1%, and FVC% by CES-D category, especially in ever-smokers and men. When adjusted for covariates, the difference in FEV1 and FEV1% for smokers with more than 18.5 lifetime pack-years from CES-D scores 0 to 3 to 16 or more (depressed) is approximately 0.25 l and 5.0% (adjusted p values for trend are <.001 and .019, respectively). In men, we also observed statistically significant inverse trends in pulmonary function with increasing CES-D. CONCLUSIONS: We identified an inverse association of depressive symptoms and pulmonary function in healthy adults, especially in men and individuals with a heavy smoking history. Further studies of these associations are essential for the development and tailoring of interventions for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease.

OBJECTIVES: In this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. RESULTS: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made. CONCLUSIONS: With our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several patient-important influenza outcomes. PURPOSE: To systematically review observational studies for benefits and harms of oseltamivir, zanamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine in the treatment of influenza. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Panteleimon, and LILACS up to November 2010; contact with pharmaceutical companies; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies in any language that compared single antiviral therapy with no therapy or other antiviral therapy, or that had no comparator, for influenza or influenza-like illness. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators extracted data. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: 74 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of the few studies providing effects with adjustment for confounders suggest that in high-risk populations, oral oseltamivir may reduce mortality (odds ratio, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43]; low-quality evidence), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.66 to 0.89]; low-quality evidence), and duration of symptoms (33 hours [CI, 21 to 45 hours]; very low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with oseltamivir was generally associated with better outcomes. Inhaled zanamivir may lead to shorter symptom duration (23 hours [CI, 17 to 28 hours]; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.37 to 1.18]) but more complications than no treatment. Direct comparison of oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir suggests no important differences in key outcomes. Data from 1 study suggests that oral amantadine may reduce mortality and pneumonia associated with influenza A. No included study evaluated rimantadine. LIMITATIONS: Mortality was assessed in high-risk patients and generalizability is limited. The overall body of evidence is limited by risk for confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.

The production of guidelines for the management of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) fits the mandate of the World Health Organization (WHO) to support countries in the reinforcement of patient care. WHO commissioned external reviews to summarise evidence on priority questions regarding case-finding, treatment regimens for multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), monitoring the response to MDR-TB treatment, and models of care. A multidisciplinary expert panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. The recommendations support the wider use of rapid drug susceptibility testing for isoniazid and rifampicin or rifampicin alone using molecular techniques. Monitoring by sputum culture is important for early detection of failure during treatment. Regimens lasting ≥20 months and containing pyrazinamide, a fluoroquinolone, a second-line injectable drug, ethionamide (or prothionamide), and either cycloserine or p-aminosalicylic acid are recommended. The guidelines promote the early use of antiretroviral agents for TB patients with HIV on second-line drug regimens. Systems that primarily employ ambulatory models of care are recommended over others based mainly on hospitalisation. Scientific and medical associations should promote the recommendations among practitioners and public health decision makers involved in MDR-TB care. Controlled trials are needed to improve the quality of existing evidence, particularly on the optimal composition and duration of MDR-TB treatment regimens.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) provides expert external advice and guidance to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on use of vaccines and related agents for control of vaccine-preventable disease in the United States. During the October 2010 ACIP meeting, the ACIP voted to adopt a new framework for developing evidence-based recommendations that is based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Key factors considered in the development of recommendations include the balance of benefits and harms, type of evidence, values and preferences of the people affected, and health economic analyses. Category A recommendations will be made for all persons in an age- or risk-factor-based group. Category B recommendations will be made for individual clinical decision making; category B recommendations do not apply to all members of an age- or risk-factor-based group, but in the context of a clinician-patient interaction, vaccination may be found to be appropriate for a person. Evidence tables will be used to summarize the benefits and harms and the strengths and limitations of the body of evidence. The new evidence framework will enhance the ACIP's decision-making process by making it more transparent, consistent and systematic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations of dietary antioxidant intake and pulmonary function. METHODS: Antioxidant data (vitamins A, C, D, E, magnesium, and omega-3 fatty acids) were abstracted from food frequency questionnaires. Pulmonary function was measured using American Thoracic Society criteria. We used analysis of variance to investigate associations. RESULTS: Among 79 police officers (57% male), forced vital capacity was positively and significantly associated with vitamin A after adjustment for age, gender, height, race, smoking status, and pack-years of smoking, and with magnesium after adjustment for those risk factors plus total calories, all supplement use, and abdominal height. Among current/former smokers only, mean levels of all pulmonary function measures were significantly associated with vitamin E; smoking status significantly modified these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Increased intake of vitamin A, vitamin E (among current/former smokers only), and magnesium was associated with better pulmonary function.