Globally, more people are living into advanced old age, with age-associated frailty, disability and multimorbidity. Achieving equity for all ages necessitates adapting healthcare systems. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have an important place in adapting evidence-based medicine and clinical care to reflect these changing needs. CPGs can facilitate better and more systematic care for older people. But they can also present a challenge to patient-centred care and shared decision-making when clinical and/or socioeconomic heterogeneity or personal priorities are not reflected in recommendations or in their application. Indeed, evidence is often lacking to enable this variability to be reflected in guidance. Evidence is more likely to be lacking about some sections of the population. Many older adults are at the intersection of many factors associated with exclusion from traditional clinical evidence sources with higher incidence of multimorbidity and disability compounded by poorer healthcare access and ultimately worse outcomes. We describe these challenges and illustrate how they can adversely affect CPG scope, the evidence available and its summation, the content of CPG recommendations and their patient-centred implementation. In all of this, we take older adults as our focus, but much of what we say will be applicable to other marginalised groups. Then, using the established process of formulating a CPG as a framework, we consider how these challenges can be mitigated, with particular attention to applicability and implementation. We consider why CPG recommendations on the same clinical areas may be inconsistent and describe approaches to ensuring that CPGs remain up to date.

Usability evaluation both by experts and target users is an integral part of the process of developing and assessing digital solutions. Usability evaluation improves the probability of having digital solutions that are easier, safer, more efficient, and more pleasant to use. However, despite the widespread recognition of the importance of usability evaluation, there is a lack of research and consensus on related concepts and reporting standards.
The aim of the study is to generate consensus on terms and procedures that should be considered when planning and reporting a study on a usability evaluation of health-related digital solutions both by users and experts and provide a checklist that can easily be used by researchers when conducting their usability studies.
A Delphi study with 2 rounds was conducted with a panel of international participants experienced in usability evaluation. In the first round, they were asked to comment on definitions, rate the importance of preidentified methodological procedures using a 9-item Likert scale, and suggest additional procedures. In the second round, experienced participants were asked to reappraise the relevance of each procedure informed by round 1 results. Consensus on the relevance of each item was defined a priori when at least 70% or more experienced participants scored an item 7 to 9 and less than 15% of participants scored the same item 1 to 3.
A total of 30 participants (n=20 females) from 11 different countries entered the Delphi study with a mean age of 37.2 (SD 7.7) years. Agreement was achieved on the definitions for all usability evaluation-related terms proposed (usability assessment moderator, participant, usability evaluation method, usability evaluation technique, tasks, usability evaluation environment, usability evaluator, and domain evaluator). A total of 38 procedures related to usability evaluation planning and reporting were identified across rounds (28 were related to usability evaluation involving users and 10 related to usability evaluation involving experts). Consensus on the relevance was achieved for 23 (82%) of the procedures related to usability evaluation involving users and for 7 (70%) of the usability evaluation procedures involving experts. A checklist was proposed that can guide authors when designing and reporting usability studies.
This study proposes a set of terms and respective definitions as well as a checklist to guide the planning and reporting of usability evaluation studies, constituting an important step toward a more standardized approach in the field of usability evaluation that may contribute to enhancing the quality of planning and reporting usability studies. Future studies can contribute to further validating this study work by refining the definitions, assessing the practical applicability of the checklist, or assessing whether using this checklist results in higher-quality digital solutions.

UNASSIGNED: With an increasing number of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing primary prevention of food allergy and atopic dermatitis, it is timely to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the quality and consistency of recommendations and evaluation of their implementability in different geographical settings.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically reviewed CPGs from 8 international databases and extensive website searches. Seven reviewers screened records in any language and then used the AGREE II and AGREE REX instruments to critically appraise CPGs published between January 2011 and April 2022.
UNASSIGNED: Our search identified 2138 relevant articles, of which 30 CPGs were eventually included. Eight (27%) CPGs were shortlisted based on our predefined quality criteria of achieving scores >70% in the \"Scope and Purpose\" and \"Rigour of Development\" domains of the AGREE II instrument. Among the shortlisted CPGs, scores on the \"Applicability\" domain were generally low, and only 3 CPGs rated highly in the \"Implementability\" domain of AGREE-REX, suggesting that the majority of CPGs fared poorly on global applicability. Recommendations on maternal diet and complementary feeding in infants were mostly consistent, but recommendations on use of hydrolysed formula and supplements varied considerably.
UNASSIGNED: The overall quality of a CPG for Food Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis prevention did not correlate well with its global applicability. It is imperative that CPG developers consider stakeholders\' preferences, local applicability, and adapt existing recommendations to each individual population and healthcare system to ensure successful implementation. There is a need for development of high-quality CPGs for allergy prevention outside of North America and Europe.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42021265689.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend the monitoring of somatic parameters in patients treated with antipsychotic drugs in order to detect adverse effects. The objective of this study was to assess, in adult and (frail) elderly populations, the consistency and applicability of the somatic monitoring instructions recommended by established CPGs prior to and during antipsychotic drug use.
A search for national and international CPGs was performed by querying the electronic database PubMed and Google. Somatic monitoring instructions were assessed for adult and (frail) elderly populations separately. The applicability of somatic monitoring instructions was assessed using the Systematic Information for Monitoring (SIM) score. Somatic monitoring instructions were considered applicable when a minimum SIM score of 3 was reached.
In total, 16 CPGs were included, with a total of 231 somatic monitoring instructions (mean: 14; range: 0-47). Of the somatic monitoring instructions, 87% were considered applicable, although critical values and how to respond to aberrant values were only present in 28 and 52% of the available instructions respectively. Only 1 CPG presented an instruction specifically for (frail) elderly populations.
We emphasize the need for a guideline with somatic monitoring instructions based on the SIM definition for both adult and (frail) elderly populations using antipsychotic drugs. In addition, CPGs should state that clear agreements should be made regarding who is responsible for interventions and somatic monitoring prior to and during antipsychotic drug use.

BACKGROUND: Study of frailty in adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is relatively new. To build the body of literature, an international consensus statement on how to support adults with IDD as they become frail was developed based on fictional cases. This study examined the face validity and applicability of the consensus statement to real-world care planning.
METHODS: Twenty-three care plans for adults with IDD who were classified along the frailty continuum were reviewed. Documented goals, actions and outcomes were coded according to the consensus statement\'s principles and recommendations.
RESULTS: The recommendations \'Improvement and maintenance are viable goals\' and \'Intersectoral collaboration is needed\' were documented the most often. Attention to the needs of formal and informal caregivers was mentioned the least often in care plans.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides some support for the face validity of the consensus statement and its applicability to supporting adults with IDD who are frail.

OBJECTIVE: The Chilean health system mandates providers to ensure assistance under a guaranteed system, the Explicit Guarantees in Healthcare (EGH) program. The Health Ministry has developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), but independent assessment of their quality is lacking.
METHODS: We assessed all CPGs of the EGH program using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool for appraising quality, validity period, and last update.
RESULTS: Eighty-six CPGs were published between 2005 and 2016. Only 15 (17.4%) were updated. The overall mean raw score was 4.18 (±0.98). The scaled scores for each domain were: Scope and objectives 79.7%, Stakeholder involvement 46.2%, Rigor of development 36.3%, Clarity of presentation 82.8%, Applicability 23.5%, and Editorial independence 39.2%. The highest items were: overall objectives described, population described, options for management clearly presented, and key recommendations easily identifiable. The worst evaluated items were: views and preferences of the target population, strengths and limitations of the body of evidence, methods for formulating the recommendations, external review by experts, and description of facilitators and barriers to application.
CONCLUSIONS: Most Chilean CPGs included in the EGH program are outdated and show items that should be improved, mainly through a more rigorous methodology, the inclusion of patients in its development, and appropriate consideration of its applicability.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process.
METHODS: Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. This is a German translation of the original paper published in English.
RESULTS: We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are needed to guide practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders to provide optimal health care. This study aims to appraise the CPGs developed in the Philippines using the AGREE II instrument.
Ninety-one CPGs were appraised independently by two health-care professionals. CPGs were considered acceptable if they garnered an overall mean score of at least 75.0% for all 6 domains and a domain score of at least 75.0% for rigor of development. A mean score of <75.0% on either of the criteria implied that the CPG needed revision.
Overall mean scores of the CPGs ranged from 8.4% to 79.2%, with a mean of 43.9% (standard deviation = 13.4%). In general, CPGs scored better for the domains of clarity of presentation, scope and purpose, and stakeholder involvement. Lowest scores were obtained for the domains of rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. Only 1 (1.1%) CPG qualified as acceptable.
AGREE II is a practical and useful guide in appraising the quality of CPGs. Strengthening technical capacity in various medical fields is essential to improve the quality of CPGs. Rigor of development, applicability issues, and editorial independence should be emphasized in CPG capacity-building activities.

UNASSIGNED: Clinical practice guidelines serve as a framework for physicians to make decisions and to support best practice for optimizing patient care. However, if the guidelines do not address all the important components of optimal care sufficiently, the quality and validity of the guidelines can be reduced. The objectives of this study were to systematically review current guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), evaluate their methodological quality and highlight the similarities and differences in their recommendations for empirical antibiotic and antibiotic de-escalation strategies.
METHODS: This review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to September 2017 for relevant guidelines. Other databases such as NICE, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the websites of professional societies were also searched for relevant guidelines. The quality and reporting of included guidelines were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument.
CONCLUSIONS: Six guidelines were eligible for inclusion in our review. Among 6 domains of AGREE-II, \"clarity of presentation\" scored the highest (80.6%), whereas \"applicability\" scored the lowest (11.8%). All the guidelines supported the antibiotic de-escalation strategy, whereas the majority of the guidelines (5 of 6) recommended that empirical antibiotic therapy should be implemented in accordance with local microbiological data. All the guidelines suggested that for early-onset HAP/VAP, therapy should start with a narrow spectrum empirical antibiotic such as penicillin or cephalosporins, whereas for late-onset HAP/VAP, the guidelines recommended the use of a broader spectrum empirical antibiotic such as the penicillin extended spectrum carbapenems and glycopeptides.
CONCLUSIONS: Expert guidelines promote the judicious use of antibiotics and prevent antibiotic overuse. The quality and validity of available HAP/VAP guidelines would be enhanced by improving their adherence to accepted best practice for the management of HAP and VAP.

This study aimed to develop the clinical practice guidelines applicability evaluation (CPGAE-V1.0) scale and to evaluate its validity and reliability.
One hundred fifty assessors were invited to rate two rounds of importance scoring of the applicability indicators by using the 5-point Likert scale. Approved indicators formed the CPGAE-V1.0 scale, consisting of 19 items, arranged into 4 domains. We enrolled eligible clinicians from 8 institutions to evaluate 9 clinical practice guidelines using the CPGAE-V1.0 scale. Content validity, construct validity, internal reliability, intra-rater reliability, and responsiveness were analyzed.
A total of 220 clinicians participated, and the response rate was 98.6% (217/220). The CPGAE-V1.0 scale had favorable content validity. The four-factor model produced acceptable fit indices. The scale had an excellent internal consistency and item discrimination. It could identify the degree of applicability of the different dimensions between different guidelines. In all domains, 77.8% (7/9) of CPGs in the minimum-scoring domain were concentrated in the \"coordination of support\" domain.
The CPGAE-V1.0 scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the applicability of CPG.