Recommendations for or against the use of interventions need to consider both desirable and undesirable effects as well as patients\' values and preferences (V&P). In the decision-making context, patients\' V&P represent the relative importance people place on the outcomes resulting from a decision. Therefore, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects from an intervention should depend not only on the difference between benefits and harms but also on the value that patients place on them. V&P are therefore one of the criteria to be considered when formulating guideline recommendations in the Evidence-to-Decision framework developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group. Patients\' V&P may be quantified through utilities, which can be elicited using direct methods (e.g., standard gamble or time trade-off) or indirect methods (using validated instruments to measure health-related quality of life, such as EQ-5D). The GRADE approach recommends conducting systematic reviews to summarise all the available evidence and assess the degree of certainty on V&P. In this article, we discuss the importance of considering patients\' V&P and provide examples of how they are considered in the 2024 person-centred Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines.

Chondrosarcoma are malignant tumours in which neoplastic cells produce cartilage. The most commonly affected sites are pelvis, femur, humerus and ribs. Scapula involvement is relatively rare. Surgery remains the primary modality of treatment for chondrosarcoma. Radiotherapy is used as an adjuvant therapy in high grade tumours and in cases of residual disease. Present study reports a rare case of scapular chondrosarcoma in a 37 year old male, managed with multimodality treatment and discusses briefly the prognostic parameters and treatment modalities. Only few studies have discussed about scapular chondrosarcoma and more studies with larger number of patients are needed to develop an evidence-based treatment and follow-up protocol for these patients.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article.
METHODS: We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance.
RESULTS: Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

To develop a digital communication tool to improve the implementation of up-to-date COVID-19 recommendations. Specifically, to improve patient, caregiver and public understanding of healthcare recommendations on prevention, diagnoses and treatment.
Multi-stakeholder engagement design. In conjunction with the COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization RecMap, we co-developed a stakeholder prioritization, drafting and editing process to enhance guideline communication and understanding.
This paper presents the multi-stakeholder development process with three distinct plain language recommendation formats: formal recommendation, good practice statement, and additional guidance. Our case study of COVID-19 plain language recommendations PLRs addresses both public health interventions (e.g., vaccination, face masks) and clinical interventions (e.g., home pulse oximetry).
This paper presents a novel approach to engaging stakeholders in improving the communication and understanding of published guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Atypical small acinar proliferation is a histopathological diagnosis of unspecified importance in prostate needle-biopsy reports, suggestive but not definitive for cancer. The terminology corresponds to some uncertainty in the biopsy report, as the finding might represent an underlying non-cancerous pathology mimicking cancer or an under-sampled prostate cancer site. Therefore, traditional practice favors an immediate repeat biopsy. However, in modern urological times, the need of urgent repeat biopsy is being challenged by some authors as in the majority of cases, the grade of cancer found in subsequent biopsy is reported to be low or the disease to be non-significant. On the other hand, high risk disease cannot be excluded, whereas no clinical or pathological factors can predict the final outcome. In this review, we discuss the significance of the diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation in the biopsy report, commenting on its importance in modern urological practice.

One essential requirement of trustworthy guidelines is that they should be based on systematic reviews of the best available evidence. The GRADE Working Group has provided guidance for evaluating the certainty of evidence based on several domains. However, for many clinical questions, published evidence may be limited, too indirect or simply not exist. In this brief report (GRADE notes), we describe our method of developing evidence-based recommendations when publisheddirect evidence was lacking.
When direct published literature was absent, an expert evidence survey was administered to panel members about their unpublished observations and case series. Focus was on collecting data about cases and outcome, not panel opinions.
Out of 26 questions prioritized by the panel for pediatric venous thromboembolism, 12 had no, very limited, or very low certainty of evidence to inform them. The panel survey was administered for these questions.
Areas of sparse evidence often reflect key questions that are critical to address in clinical practice guidelines due to the uncertainty among health care providers. The expert evidence approach used in this study is one method for panels totransparently deal with the lack of published evidence to directly inform recommendations.

Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.
We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.
Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.
14 CPG panel members.
For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel\'s benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making.
We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel\'s preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time.
The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

A \'Rapid Recommendation\' has been produced by the GRADE group, in collaboration with MAGIC and BMJ, in response to an RCT showing Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy (DAPT) is superior to Aspirin alone for patients who had suffered acute high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor ischaemic stroke. The interactive MAGIC decision aid that accompanies each Rapid Recommendation is the main route to their clinical implementation. It can facilitate preference-sensitive person-centred care, but only if a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis-based decision support tool is added. A demonstration version of such an add-on to the MAGIC aid, divested of recommendations, is available online. Exploring the results of different preference inputs into the tool raises questions about the strong recommendation for DAPT.

The launch of \'Rapid Recommendations\' by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) group, in collaboration with Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice (MAGIC) and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), is a very interesting recent development in e-healthcare. Designed to respond quickly to developments that have created new decision situations, their first project resulted from the arrival of minimally invasive Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) as an alternative to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR), for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The interactive MAGIC decision aid that accompanies a Rapid Recommendation and is the main route to its clinical implementation, represents a major advance in e-health, for a cardiovascular decision in this case. However, it needs to go further in order to facilitate fully person-centred care, where the weighted preferences of the individual person are elicited at the point of decision, and transparently integrated with the best (most personalised) estimates of option performances, to produce personalised, preference-sensitive option evaluations. This can be achieved by inputting the collated GRADE evidence on the criteria relevant in the TAVI/SAVR choice into a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis-based decision support tool, generating a personalised, preference-sensitive opinion. A demonstration version of this add-on to the MAGIC aid, divested of recommendations, is available online as proof of method.

BACKGROUND: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework is a validated evaluation tool used to assess the quality of scientific publications. It helps in enhancing clinicians\' decision-making process and supports production of informed healthy policy.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report was two-fold. First, we reviewed the interpretation of observational studies. The second purpose was to share or provide an example using the GRADE criteria.
METHODS: To illustrate the use of the GRADE framework to assess publications, we selected a study evaluating the risk of spontaneous abortion (SAB) after influenza vaccine administration.
RESULTS: Since 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice have recommended influenza vaccination of pregnant women. Previous studies have not found an association between influenza vaccination and SAB. However, in a recent case-control study by Donahue et al, a correlation with SAB in women who received the H1N1 influenza vaccine was identified. For women who received H1N1-containing vaccine in the previous and current influenza season, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for SAB was 7.7 (95% CI, 2.2-27.3), while the aOR for women not vaccinated in the previous season but vaccinated in the current season was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.7).
CONCLUSIONS: Our goal is to enable the readers to critique published literature using appropriate evaluation tools such as GRADE.