Abstract：
We aimed to develop a checklist to aid guideline developers in determining which scientific or societal cause (\"triggers\") are relevant when considering to initiate a rapid recommendation procedure.
We conducted a two-round modified Delphi procedure with a panel of Dutch guideline experts, clinicians, and patient representatives. A previously conducted systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with four science journalists were used to generate a list of potential items. This item list was submitted to the panel for discussion, reduction and refinement into a checklist.
Thirteen experts took part. Two questionnaires were completed in which participants scored an initial list of 64 items based on relevance. During two online meetings, the scores were discussed, irrelevant items were removed, and relevant items were reformulated into seven questions. The final \"quickscan assessment of the need for a rapid recommendation\" covers user perspective, scientific evidence, clinical relevance, clinical practice variation, applicability, quality of care and public health outcomes, and ethical/legal considerations.
The quickscan aids guideline developers in systematically assessing whether a trigger expresses a valid need for developing a rapid recommendation. Future research could focus on the applicability and validity of the checklist within guideline development programs.
We conducted a two-round modified Delphi procedure with a panel of Dutch guideline experts, clinicians, and patient representatives. A previously conducted systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with four science journalists were used to generate a list of potential items. This item list was submitted to the panel for discussion, reduction and refinement into a checklist.
Thirteen experts took part. Two questionnaires were completed in which participants scored an initial list of 64 items based on relevance. During two online meetings, the scores were discussed, irrelevant items were removed, and relevant items were reformulated into seven questions. The final \"quickscan assessment of the need for a rapid recommendation\" covers user perspective, scientific evidence, clinical relevance, clinical practice variation, applicability, quality of care and public health outcomes, and ethical/legal considerations.
The quickscan aids guideline developers in systematically assessing whether a trigger expresses a valid need for developing a rapid recommendation. Future research could focus on the applicability and validity of the checklist within guideline development programs.
摘要：
目的：我们的目的是制定一份核对表，以帮助指南开发人员在考虑启动快速推荐程序时确定哪些科学或社会原因（“触发因素”）是相关的。
方法：和设置：我们与荷兰指南专家小组进行了两轮修改的Delphi程序，临床医生和患者代表。先前对四名科学记者进行了系统的文献综述和半结构化采访，以生成潜在项目列表。该项目表已提交小组讨论，简化和细化为清单。
结果：13位专家参加。完成了两份问卷，参与者根据相关性对64个项目的初始列表进行了评分。在两次在线会议上讨论了分数，删除了无关项目，并将相关项目重新表述为七个问题。最终的“快速推荐需求的快速扫描评估”涵盖了用户的观点，科学证据,临床相关性，临床实践变异，适用性,护理质量和公共卫生结果，和道德/法律考虑。
结论：quickscan帮助指南开发人员系统地评估触发因素是否表达了快速推荐的有效需求。未来的研究可以集中在指南开发计划中清单的适用性和有效性上。
方法：和设置：我们与荷兰指南专家小组进行了两轮修改的Delphi程序，临床医生和患者代表。先前对四名科学记者进行了系统的文献综述和半结构化采访，以生成潜在项目列表。该项目表已提交小组讨论，简化和细化为清单。
结果：13位专家参加。完成了两份问卷，参与者根据相关性对64个项目的初始列表进行了评分。在两次在线会议上讨论了分数，删除了无关项目，并将相关项目重新表述为七个问题。最终的“快速推荐需求的快速扫描评估”涵盖了用户的观点，科学证据,临床相关性，临床实践变异，适用性,护理质量和公共卫生结果，和道德/法律考虑。
结论：quickscan帮助指南开发人员系统地评估触发因素是否表达了快速推荐的有效需求。未来的研究可以集中在指南开发计划中清单的适用性和有效性上。
