Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Evidence-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 to develop a list of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline or vaccination recommendations, which can be applied from the time a guideline or guideline update is finalised.
METHODS: In this article we describe the development of the AGIL criteria (Assessment of Guidelines for Updating Recommendations). The AGIL criteria were developed by experienced scientists and experts in the field of guideline development in a multi-step process. The five steps included: 1) development of an initial list of criteria by the project team; 2) online survey of guideline experts on the initial version of the criteria list; 3) revision of the criteria list based on the results of the online survey; 4) workshop on the criteria list at the EbM Congress 2023; 5) creation of version 1.0 of the AGIL criteria based on the workshop results.
RESULTS: The initial list included the following three criteria: 1) relevance of the question 2) availability of new relevant evidence, and 3) impact of potentially new evidence. The response rate of the online survey for fully completed questionnaires was 31.0% (N=195; 630 guideline experts were contacted by email). For 90.3% (n=176) of the respondents, the criteria list included all essential aspects for assessing the need for updating guideline recommendations. More than three quarters of respondents rated the importance of the three criteria as \"very important\" or \"important\" (criteria 1-3: 75.3%, 86.1%, 85.2%) and - with the exception of criterion 1 - comprehensibility as \"very comprehensible\" or \"comprehensible\" (criteria 1-3: 58.4%, 75.9%, 78.5%). The results of the online survey and the workshop generally confirmed the three criteria with their two sub-questions. The incorporation of all feedback resulted in the AGIL criteria (version 1.0), recapping: 1) relevance of the question regarding a) PICO components and b) other factors, e.g. epidemiological aspects; 2) availability of new evidence a) on health-related benefits and harms and b) on other decision factors, e.g. feasibility, acceptability; 3) impact of new evidence a) on the certainty of evidence on which the recommendation is based and b) on the present recommendation, e.g.
METHODS:
CONCLUSIONS: The moderate response rate of the online survey may have limited its representativeness. Nevertheless, we consider the response rate to be satisfactory in this research context. The inclusion of many experts in the online survey and the EbM Congress workshop is a strength of the project and supports the quality of the results.
CONCLUSIONS: The AGIL criteria provide a structured guidance for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline recommendations and other evidence-based recommendations. The implementation and evaluation of the AGIL criteria 1.0 in a field test is planned.
METHODS: In this article we describe the development of the AGIL criteria (Assessment of Guidelines for Updating Recommendations). The AGIL criteria were developed by experienced scientists and experts in the field of guideline development in a multi-step process. The five steps included: 1) development of an initial list of criteria by the project team; 2) online survey of guideline experts on the initial version of the criteria list; 3) revision of the criteria list based on the results of the online survey; 4) workshop on the criteria list at the EbM Congress 2023; 5) creation of version 1.0 of the AGIL criteria based on the workshop results.
RESULTS: The initial list included the following three criteria: 1) relevance of the question 2) availability of new relevant evidence, and 3) impact of potentially new evidence. The response rate of the online survey for fully completed questionnaires was 31.0% (N=195; 630 guideline experts were contacted by email). For 90.3% (n=176) of the respondents, the criteria list included all essential aspects for assessing the need for updating guideline recommendations. More than three quarters of respondents rated the importance of the three criteria as \"very important\" or \"important\" (criteria 1-3: 75.3%, 86.1%, 85.2%) and - with the exception of criterion 1 - comprehensibility as \"very comprehensible\" or \"comprehensible\" (criteria 1-3: 58.4%, 75.9%, 78.5%). The results of the online survey and the workshop generally confirmed the three criteria with their two sub-questions. The incorporation of all feedback resulted in the AGIL criteria (version 1.0), recapping: 1) relevance of the question regarding a) PICO components and b) other factors, e.g. epidemiological aspects; 2) availability of new evidence a) on health-related benefits and harms and b) on other decision factors, e.g. feasibility, acceptability; 3) impact of new evidence a) on the certainty of evidence on which the recommendation is based and b) on the present recommendation, e.g.
METHODS:
CONCLUSIONS: The moderate response rate of the online survey may have limited its representativeness. Nevertheless, we consider the response rate to be satisfactory in this research context. The inclusion of many experts in the online survey and the EbM Congress workshop is a strength of the project and supports the quality of the results.
CONCLUSIONS: The AGIL criteria provide a structured guidance for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline recommendations and other evidence-based recommendations. The implementation and evaluation of the AGIL criteria 1.0 in a field test is planned.
摘要：
背景：循证指南和疫苗接种建议应不断更新，以适当支持卫生保健决策。然而,用于更新指南的资源通常是有限的。该项目的目的是制定一系列标准，以前瞻性评估是否需要更新个人指南或疫苗接种建议，可以从指南或指南更新完成时开始应用。
方法：在本文中，我们描述了AGIL标准（更新建议指南的评估）的开发。AGIL标准是由指南开发领域经验丰富的科学家和专家在多步骤过程中开发的。这五个步骤包括：1）由项目团队制定标准的初始清单；2）对准则专家对标准清单的初始版本进行在线调查；3）根据在线调查结果修订标准清单；4）在EbM大会2023上对标准清单进行研讨会；5）根据研讨会结果创建AGIL标准1.0版。
结果：初始列表包括以下三个标准：1）问题的相关性2）新的相关证据的可用性，3)潜在新证据的影响。在线调查对完整问卷的回答率为31.0%（N=195；通过电子邮件联系了630名指南专家）。对于90.3%(n=176)的受访者，标准清单包括评估是否需要更新指南建议的所有必要方面。超过四分之三的受访者将这三个标准的重要性评为“非常重要”或“重要”(标准1-3:75.3%,86.1%,85.2%)和-除标准1外-可理解性为“非常可理解”或“可理解”(标准1-3:58.4%，75.9%,78.5%）。在线调查和研讨会的结果总体上证实了这三个标准及其两个子问题。所有反馈的合并产生了AGIL标准(1.0版)，回顾：1)关于a)PICO组件和b)其他因素的问题的相关性，例如流行病学方面；2)提供新证据a)与健康相关的益处和危害，b)其他决定因素，例如可行性，可接受性；3）新证据的影响a）对建议所依据的证据的确定性，b）对本建议的影响，
方法：
结论：在线调查的中等反应率可能限制了其代表性。然而，我们认为在本研究背景下，回应率令人满意。将许多专家纳入在线调查和EbM大会研讨会是该项目的优势，并支持结果的质量。
结论：AGIL标准为前瞻性评估是否需要更新个别指南建议和其他循证建议提供了结构化指导。计划在现场测试中实施和评估AGIL标准1.0。
方法：在本文中，我们描述了AGIL标准（更新建议指南的评估）的开发。AGIL标准是由指南开发领域经验丰富的科学家和专家在多步骤过程中开发的。这五个步骤包括：1）由项目团队制定标准的初始清单；2）对准则专家对标准清单的初始版本进行在线调查；3）根据在线调查结果修订标准清单；4）在EbM大会2023上对标准清单进行研讨会；5）根据研讨会结果创建AGIL标准1.0版。
结果：初始列表包括以下三个标准：1）问题的相关性2）新的相关证据的可用性，3)潜在新证据的影响。在线调查对完整问卷的回答率为31.0%（N=195；通过电子邮件联系了630名指南专家）。对于90.3%(n=176)的受访者，标准清单包括评估是否需要更新指南建议的所有必要方面。超过四分之三的受访者将这三个标准的重要性评为“非常重要”或“重要”(标准1-3:75.3%,86.1%,85.2%)和-除标准1外-可理解性为“非常可理解”或“可理解”(标准1-3:58.4%，75.9%,78.5%）。在线调查和研讨会的结果总体上证实了这三个标准及其两个子问题。所有反馈的合并产生了AGIL标准(1.0版)，回顾：1)关于a)PICO组件和b)其他因素的问题的相关性，例如流行病学方面；2)提供新证据a)与健康相关的益处和危害，b)其他决定因素，例如可行性，可接受性；3）新证据的影响a）对建议所依据的证据的确定性，b）对本建议的影响，
方法：
结论：在线调查的中等反应率可能限制了其代表性。然而，我们认为在本研究背景下，回应率令人满意。将许多专家纳入在线调查和EbM大会研讨会是该项目的优势，并支持结果的质量。
结论：AGIL标准为前瞻性评估是否需要更新个别指南建议和其他循证建议提供了结构化指导。计划在现场测试中实施和评估AGIL标准1.0。
