PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The success of abdominal cancer surgery depends not only on the surgery itself but is influenced by the overall perioperative management. Given the multitude of perioperative measures and the ever-increasing number of studies on perioperative management, it is difficult to keep track and provide evidence-based perioperative management. The planned guideline on perioperative management will review the existing evidence and derive treatment recommendations.
METHODS: The processing of the evidence is carried out by 6 working groups according to an 8-step scheme: after drafting the guideline questions in PICO format (1), a systematic literature search is carried out (2), and the records found are screened by two independent reviewers from the coordination team. Subsequently, the full texts of the potentially relevant articles are made available to the working groups for full text screening (3). All articles to be included are reviewed for methodological quality (4) before summary of findings tables are generated (5). In line with the GRADE approach, confidence in the evidence is assessed (6) before a recommendation is derived from the evidence, using a modified GRADE Evidence to Decision Framework (7). Finally, all recommendations are compiled and agreed within the guideline group (8).
CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines serve as foundation for therapy decisions in everyday clinical practice and should therefore be based on up-to-date research results. However, while primary studies and systematic reviews are critically reviewed for their methodological quality, the process of guideline development is often not comprehensible. A protocol with predefined methodology should therefore create transparency and strengthen confidence in the recommendations.
BACKGROUND: The guideline is registered in the AWMF (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) Guideline Register (088-010OL).
METHODS: The processing of the evidence is carried out by 6 working groups according to an 8-step scheme: after drafting the guideline questions in PICO format (1), a systematic literature search is carried out (2), and the records found are screened by two independent reviewers from the coordination team. Subsequently, the full texts of the potentially relevant articles are made available to the working groups for full text screening (3). All articles to be included are reviewed for methodological quality (4) before summary of findings tables are generated (5). In line with the GRADE approach, confidence in the evidence is assessed (6) before a recommendation is derived from the evidence, using a modified GRADE Evidence to Decision Framework (7). Finally, all recommendations are compiled and agreed within the guideline group (8).
CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines serve as foundation for therapy decisions in everyday clinical practice and should therefore be based on up-to-date research results. However, while primary studies and systematic reviews are critically reviewed for their methodological quality, the process of guideline development is often not comprehensible. A protocol with predefined methodology should therefore create transparency and strengthen confidence in the recommendations.
BACKGROUND: The guideline is registered in the AWMF (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) Guideline Register (088-010OL).
摘要：
背景：腹部癌症手术的成功不仅取决于手术本身，还受整体围手术期管理的影响。鉴于许多围手术期措施和越来越多的围手术期管理研究，难以跟踪和提供基于证据的围手术期管理。关于围手术期管理的计划指南将审查现有证据并得出治疗建议。
方法：由6个工作组根据8步方案进行证据的处理：在以PICO格式（1）起草指南问题之后，进行了系统的文献检索(2)，发现的记录由协调小组的两名独立审查员筛选。随后，潜在相关条款的全文已提供给工作组进行全文筛选(3)。在生成结果表摘要（5）之前，对所有要纳入的文章进行方法学质量审查（4）。按照等级制度,在从证据中得出建议之前，对证据的信心进行评估(6)，使用修改后的等级证据到决策框架(7)。最后,所有建议均在指南组(8)内汇编并达成一致.
结论：指南是日常临床实践中治疗决策的基础，因此应基于最新的研究结果。然而,虽然主要研究和系统评价的方法质量受到严格审查，准则制定的过程往往是不可理解的。因此，具有预定方法的议定书应建立透明度，并加强对建议的信心。
背景：该指南已在AWMF（科学医学协会）指南注册（088-010OL）中注册。
方法：由6个工作组根据8步方案进行证据的处理：在以PICO格式（1）起草指南问题之后，进行了系统的文献检索(2)，发现的记录由协调小组的两名独立审查员筛选。随后，潜在相关条款的全文已提供给工作组进行全文筛选(3)。在生成结果表摘要（5）之前，对所有要纳入的文章进行方法学质量审查（4）。按照等级制度,在从证据中得出建议之前，对证据的信心进行评估(6)，使用修改后的等级证据到决策框架(7)。最后,所有建议均在指南组(8)内汇编并达成一致.
结论：指南是日常临床实践中治疗决策的基础，因此应基于最新的研究结果。然而,虽然主要研究和系统评价的方法质量受到严格审查，准则制定的过程往往是不可理解的。因此，具有预定方法的议定书应建立透明度，并加强对建议的信心。
背景：该指南已在AWMF（科学医学协会）指南注册（088-010OL）中注册。
