Original articleThe UpPriority tool supported prioritization processes for updating clinical guideline questions
Introduction
Prioritizing clinical questions (CQs) for update in the clinical guidelines (CG) can ensure that the limited resources available are invested in those areas more likely to benefit the health care system [1], [2], [3]. An update prioritization process is defined as the “assessment and ranking of CGs, within a defined collection of CGs, according to the need for updating” [4]. Updating strategies can be optimized by prioritization processes that help identify CGs, CG sections, CQs, or recommendations in the greatest need for update [3]. Recent reviews have summarized different prioritization processes and criteria across systematic reviews, health technology assessments and CGs [3], [4], [5], [6]. However, to date, there is suboptimal reporting of prioritization processes for updating [3].
We recently developed the UpPriority tool, a pragmatic tool for prioritizing CG questions for updating [7]. The tool consists of six priority items that must be assessed against all CQs in a CG. The six items are: 1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, 2) availability of new relevant evidence, 3) context relevance of the CQ, 4) methodological applicability of the CQ, 5) users’ interest, and 6) impact on access to health care. The tool also includes guidance for using the tool and reporting the results.
Although the UpPriority tool has been already included in some methodological handbooks and methodological studies [8], [9], [10], it has not been yet formally implemented. We aim to 1) use the tool to identify which CQs within CGs need to be prioritized for updating and 2) assess the implementation of the tool in a real-world set of CGs.
Section snippets
Study design
We assessed CQs from a sample of CGs developed in the Spanish National Health System (NHS) CG Program (“section 2.2 Selection of the clinical guidelines”). We applied the UpPriority tool to each CG using a step-by-step process that included (“section 2.3 Assessment of clinical questions using UpPriority tool”): 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group (WG), 2) mapping of the original CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4)
Role of the funding source
The funding sources had no role in the study design, interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or submission for publication.
Institutional review board approval
This project received a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona, Spain).
Selection of the clinical guidelines
A total of eight CGs were included in the Spanish NHS CG Program portfolio between 2016 and 2017. Four CGs met the inclusion criteria: CG on chronic heart failure [12], CG on inherited retinal dystrophies [13], CG on management of vasomotor and vaginal symptoms associated with menopause and postmenopause [14], and CG on open-angle glaucoma [15]. The main characteristics of included CGs are described in Appendix A.
UpPriority Implementation Working Group
We contacted all the original GDG members (n = 54) and further new members (n
Discussion
We applied and tested the UpPriority tool in four CGs from the Spanish NHS and identified their prioritization needs for updating. The UpPriority Implementation WGs included a total of 30 participants who assessed 107 CQs within the included CGs. A total of 16 CQs were considered to have high priority for updating, 47 medium priority, and 44 low priority. The mean time each appraiser spent evaluating CQs with the tool was 3.8 hours (range 0.5 to 10). The degree of agreement among the appraisers
Conclusion
The UpPriority tool can be used to identify which clinical questions within a CG need to be prioritized for updating in a real-world scenario. Identification and training of appraisers is the main challenge to optimize the update prioritization process using the tool.
Up Priority Implementation Working Group
Alcocer Yuste, Pablo; Ayuso García, Carmen; Benatar Haserfaty, Jacobo; Blasco Suñé, Cristina; Bover Freire, Ramón; Carlos Gil, Ana María; Carreño Salas, Ester; Castany Aregall, Marta; Castellanos Rodríguez, Ángel; Duch, Susana; Gamarra Ortiz, Javier; Hernández Verdejo, José Luis; Jiménez Rolando, Belén; Llaneza Coto, Ángel Plácido; Martínez Férez, Isabel María; Martínez Sanz, Henar; Mendieta Rasós, Núria; Millán, José María; Mingorance Moya, Ester; Montilla Ortega, Manuel; Navero Rodríguez,
Data availability
Data will be made available on request — [email protected]
Grant support
This study has been funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the project “PI15/00325” (cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund, “Investing in your future”). Laura Martínez García is funded by a Miguel Servet contract (CP18/00007) from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund, “Investing in your future”).
Reproducible research statement
Study protocol: Available from Andrea Juliana Sanabria (e-mail: [email protected]). Statistical code used to generate results: Not applicable. Data set: Available from Andrea Juliana Sanabria (e-mail: https://[email protected]).
Acknowledgments
Andrea Juliana Sanabria Uribe is a doctoral candidate at the Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Preventive Medicine Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. We want to acknowledge Judith Solà for her technical support with the online survey and Paloma Arriola, José Luis Castro, Dolores Estrada, Patricia Gavin, and Mar Trujillo for their support during the recruitment phase of the project.
References (20)
- et al.
Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating
J Clin Epidemiol
(2017) - et al.
Guideline on terminology and definitions of updating clinical guidelines: the updating glossary
J Clin Epidemiol
(2018) - et al.
A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review
J Clin Epidemiol
(2020) - et al.
The UpPriority tool was developed to guide the prioritization of clinical guideline questions for updating
J Clin Epidemiol
(2020) - et al.
Priority-based initiative for updating existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: the results of two iterations
J Clin Epidemiol
(2014) - et al.
A systematic decision-making process on the need for updating clinical practice guidelines proved to be feasible in a pilot study
J Clin Epidemiol
(2018) - et al.
The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: a scoping review
PLoS One
(2020) - et al.
Pregnancy clinical guideline updating working G. Continuous surveillance of a pregnancy clinical guideline: an early experience
Syst Rev
(2017) - et al.
Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review
BMC Health Serv Res
(2019) - European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer [Internet]. Updating strategy of the European breast guidelines on...
Cited by (0)
Declaration of competing interest: Authors have disclosed no conflicts relevant of interest. The views expressed in this article are solely the authors’ and do not reflect those of their professional affiliations.
Author statement: Andrea Juliana Sanabria: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing (original draft), Writing (review & editing). Pablo Alonso-Coello: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing (original draft), Writing (review & editing). Emma McFarlane: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing (original draft), Writing (review & editing). Ena Niño de Guzman: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing (original draft), Writing (review & editing). Marta Roqué: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing (original draft), Writing (review & editing). Laura Martínez García: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Visualization, Writing (original draft), Writing (review & editing).