BACKGROUND: Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.
METHODS: Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies.
BACKGROUND: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.
BACKGROUND: https://osf.io/beqjr.

This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) associated with the management of poststroke sensory loss and develop an algorithm for health professionals.
We conducted a systematic review for relevant CPGs published between 2017 and 2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Checklist. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument was used to assess methodological quality. Recommendations for managing poststroke sensory loss from high and average-quality CPGs were summarised and developed into an algorithm.
First, 1458 records were identified from the database searches and other sources. Finally, four CPGs were included: three were rated as high quality and one as average quality. Twenty-two recommendations were summarised from these CPGs and used to develop a draft algorithm. Then, we revised the draft algorithm developed by the authors based on expert feedback to form the final version.
The four CPGs included in this study had good quality. Based on these CPGs, we developed an algorithm to facilitate health professionals\' adherence to CPGs and contribute to evidence-based medicine. In the future, more high-quality CPGs are required to give further scientific and convincing evidence to manage poststroke sensory loss.

Despite a decrease in publication, case reports remain essential in medical literature as they offer detailed descriptions of individual patient cases and valuable insights for future management. These reports adhere to a standardized structure comprising sections such as abstract, introduction, case report, discussion, and conclusion. Obtaining informed consent and adhering to guidelines is essential. Case reports contribute to evidence-based medicine by detecting new therapies and adverse events. They also facilitate clear reporting, guideline adherence, and mentorship programs. These reports are vital for documenting rare occurrences, assisting clinicians in timely management, and communicating novel information to busy medical professionals. Following case report guidelines ensures comprehensive and standardized reporting, enhancing the acceptance and quality of case reports, and advancing medical knowledge.

A clinical practice guideline on glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis was developed by an American Physical Therapy Association volunteer guideline development group that consisted of physical therapists, an occupational therapist, and a physician. The guideline was based on systematic reviews of current scientific and clinical information and accepted approaches for physical therapist management of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis. This clinical practice guideline is available in Spanish; see Supplementary Appendix 8.

OBJECTIVE: It is unclear how NCCN guidelines recommend \"supportive care\" and \"best supportive care\" in oncology practice. We examined the usage of \"supportive care\" and \"best supportive care\" in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.
METHODS: We reviewed all updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer in October 2019. We documented the frequency of occurrence, definition, and timing of introduction of each term. We compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.
RESULTS: We identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic guidelines. Thirty-seven (70%) guidelines mentioned \"supportive care\" and 36 (68%) mentioned \"best supportive care.\" Hematologic guidelines were significantly more likely than solid tumor guidelines to use the term \"supportive care\" (median occurrence 19 vs. 2; P = 0.001) and to describe \"supportive care\" as management of cancer-related complications (N = 11/15, 73% vs. N = 2/22, 9%; P < 0.001). Domains of specialist palliative care were infrequently mentioned (N = 10/37, 27%). In contrast, solid tumor guidelines were significantly more likely than hematologic guidelines to mention \"best supportive care\" (median occurrence 6 vs. 0; P = 0.016). This term was rarely defined and mostly used in the advanced disease setting.
CONCLUSIONS: \"Supportive care\" and \"best supportive care\" were frequently used in NCCN guidelines, with significant variations in usage between solid tumor and hematologic oncologists. \"Supportive care\" was mostly limited to management of cancer-related complications and treatment adverse effects in NCCN guidelines, highlighting the need to go beyond the traditional biomedical model to more a patient-centered care model with greater integration of palliative care.

Integration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care improves patients\' quality of life and survival. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer treatment guidelines are instrumental in standardizing cancer care, yet it is unclear how palliative and hospice care are integrated in these guidelines. In this study, we examined the frequency of occurrence of \"palliative care\" and \"hospice care\" in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.
We reviewed all 53 updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer. We documented the frequency of occurrence of \"palliative care\" and \"hospice care,\" the definitions for these terms if available, and the recommended timing for these services.
We identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic malignancy guidelines. Palliative care was mentioned in 30 (57%) guidelines (24 solid tumor, 6 hematologic). Palliative care was mentioned more frequently in solid tumor than hematologic guidelines (median, 2 vs. 0; p = .04). Among the guidelines that included palliative care in the treatment recommendation, 25 (83%) only referred to NCCN palliative care guideline. Specialist palliative care referral was specifically mentioned in 5 of 30 (17%) guidelines. Only 14 of 24 (58%) solid tumor guidelines and 2 of 6 (33%) hematologic guidelines recommended palliative care in the front line setting for advanced malignancy. Few guidelines (n = 3/53, 6%) mentioned hospice care.
\"Palliative care\" was absent in almost half of NCCN cancer treatment guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. Our findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.
Integration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care is associated with improved patient outcomes. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology have an important role to standardize palliative care involvement for cancer patients. It is unclear how often palliative care referral is recommended in these guidelines. In this study involving 53 NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer, the researchers found that palliative care was not mentioned in over 40% of NCCN guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. These findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Health research reporting guidelines for case reports (CARE - CAse REport) published in 2013 and 2017 have become a generally accepted standard for publishing case reports. The CARE guidelines represent an architectural framework for writing an evidence-based case report that can be customized as need for a specialty (or disease) if needed. We aim to develop a CARE guideline extension for acupuncture following the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) and the 2010″Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting\". We have established a group of international experts including; clinicians, researchers and methodologists. We performed a needs assessment based on a review of acupuncture case reports published in the indexed medical literature. The needs assessment will be followed by (1) a series of expert interviews to establish a draft, (2) a modified Delphi process, and (3) a consensus meeting. Following the consensus meeting we will pilot test the CARE draft before publishing the CARE extension for acupuncture.
METHODS: We will develop the CARE extensions for acupuncture following recommendations of the EQUATOR Network and the 2010 \"Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting\". We will establish an international multidisciplinary group including clinical practitioners, acupuncturists, researchers of reporting guidelines on acupuncture, clinical epidemiologists and statisticians. We performed a needs assessment, reviewing published case reports using acupuncture as a therapeutic intervention from indexed medical journals (PubMed-PMC and Medline, Scopus, Embase, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Wan Fang database, Chinese BioMedicine database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP). In consultations with advisors we will develop a draft of potential items to be included in the CARE extension for acupuncture. Then we will conduct a modified Delphi process of at least three rounds, hold a face-to-face consensus meeting, pilot test and submit the CARE extension for acupuncture for publication.
CONCLUSIONS: The development of a widely accepted CARE extension for acupuncture for case reports published in indexed medical journals. These guidelines will follow the EQUATOR Network recommendations and the 2010 \"Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting\".

BACKGROUND: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within 6 domains and 2 overall assessments (1. overall guideline quality; 2. recommendation for use). The aim of this systematic review was twofold. Firstly, to investigate how often AGREE II users conduct the 2 overall assessments. Secondly, to investigate the influence of the 6 domain scores on each of the 2 overall assessments.
METHODS: A systematic bibliographic search was conducted for publications reporting guideline appraisals with AGREE II. The impact of the 6 domain scores on the overall assessment of guideline quality was examined using a multiple linear regression model. Their impact on the recommendation for use (possible answers: \"yes\", \"yes, with modifications\", \"no\") was examined using a multinomial regression model.
RESULTS: 118 relevant publications including 1453 guidelines were identified. 77.1% of the publications reported results for at least one overall assessment, but only 32.2% reported results for both overall assessments. The results of the regression analyses showed a statistically significant influence of all domains on overall guideline quality, with Domain 3 (rigour of development) having the strongest influence. For the recommendation for use, the results showed a significant influence of Domains 3 to 5 (\"yes\" vs. \"no\") and Domains 3 and 5 (\"yes, with modifications\" vs. \"no\").
CONCLUSIONS: The 2 overall assessments of AGREE II are underreported by guideline assessors. Domains 3 and 5 have the strongest influence on the results of the 2 overall assessments, while the other domains have a varying influence. Within a normative approach, our findings could be used as guidance for weighting individual domains in AGREE II to make the overall assessments more objective. Alternatively, a stronger content analysis of the individual domains could clarify their importance in terms of guideline quality. Moreover, AGREE II should require users to transparently present how they conducted the assessments.

暂无摘要。

Both experimental and therapeutic uses of the new reproductive technologies have been governed not by the medical ideology of the best interests of patients and their children, but by the market ideology of profit maximization under the guise of \"reproductive liberty.\" Government in our constitutional, democratic society has the authority and obligation to make and enforce reasonable regulations to manage the new reproductive market in order to protect the interests of the public, prospective parents, and their future children. The \"cloning\" debate provides a useful opportunity to compare and contrast the competing regulatory models of the free market, professional guidelines, and government restrictions.