Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a \'living\' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the review\'s research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, an industry has emerged around Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) development in healthcare, which has increased pressure on guideline-producing organisations to develop CPGs at an accelerated rate. These are intended to improve the quality of care provided to patients while containing healthcare costs and reducing variability in clinical practice. However, this has inadvertently led to discrepancies in CPG recommendations between health organisations, also challenging healthcare providers who rely on these for decision-making and to inform clinical care. From a global perspective, although some countries have initiated national protocols regarding developing, appraising and implementing high-quality CPGs, there remains no standardised approach to any aspect of CPG production.
METHODS: A scoping review of the literature and document analysis were conducted according to Joanna Brigg\'s Institute methodology for scoping reviews. This comprised two qualitative methods: a comprehensive review of the literature (using CINAHL, Scopus and PubMeD) and a document analysis of all national and international guideline development processes (manual search of health-related websites, national/international organisational health policies and documents).
RESULTS: A set of clear principles and processes were identified as crucial to CPG development, informing the planning, implementation and dissemination of recommendations. Fundamentally, two common goals were reported: to improve the quality and consistency of clinical practice (patient care) and to reduce the duplication or ratification of low-grade CPGs.
CONCLUSIONS: Consultation and communication between CPG working parties, including a wide range of representatives (including professional organisations, regional and local offices, and relevant national bodies) is essential. Further research is required to establish the feasibility of standardising the approach and disseminating the recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks provide a structured and transparent approach for groups of experts to use when formulating recommendations or making decisions. While extensively used for clinical and public health recommendations, EtD frameworks are not in widespread use in environmental health. This review sought to identify, compare and contrast key EtD frameworks for decisions on interventions used in clinical medicine, public health or environmental health. This information can be used to develop an EtD framework suitable for formulating recommendations for interventions in environmental health.
METHODS: We identified a convenience sample of EtD frameworks used by a range of organizations. We searched Medline for systematic reviews of frameworks. We summarized the decision criteria in the selected frameworks and reviews in a qualitative manner.
RESULTS: Fourteen organizations provided 18 EtD frameworks; most frameworks focused on clinical medicine or public health interventions; four focused on environmental health and three on economic considerations. Harms of interventions were examined in all frameworks and benefits in all but one. Other criteria included certainty of the body of evidence (15 frameworks), resource considerations (15), feasibility (13), equity (12), values (11), acceptability (11), and human rights (2). There was variation in how specific criteria were defined. The five identified systematic reviews reported a similar spectrum of EtD criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The EtD frameworks examined encompassed similar criteria, with tailoring to specific audience needs. Existing frameworks are a useful starting point for development of one tailored to decision-making in environmental health.
UNASSIGNED: JPB Foundation.

BACKGROUND: At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Thailand had almost depleted its critical care resources, particularly intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators. This prompted the necessity to develop a national guideline for resource allocation. This paper describes the development process of a national guideline for critical resource allocation in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: The guideline development process consisted of three steps: (1) rapid review of existing rationing guidelines and literature; (2) interviews of Thai clinicians experienced in caring for COVID-19 cases; and (3) multi-stakeholder consultations. At steps 1 and 2, data was synthesized and categorized using a thematic and content analysis approach, and this guided the formulation of the draft guideline. Within step 3, the draft Thai critical care allocation guideline was debated and finalized before entering the policy-decision stage.
RESULTS: Three-order prioritization criteria consisting of (1) clinical prognosis using four tools (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, frailty assessment and cognitive impairment assessment), (2) number of life-years saved and (3) social usefulness were proposed by the research team based on literature reviews and interviews. At consultations, stakeholders rejected using life-years as a criterion due to potential age and gender discrimination, as well as social utility due to a concern it would foster public distrust, as this judgement can be arbitrary. It was agreed that the attending physician is required to be the decision-maker in the Thai medico-legal context, while a patient review committee would play an advisory role. Allocation decisions are to be documented for transparency, and no appealing mechanism is to be applied. This guideline will be triggered only when demand exceeds supply after the utmost efforts to mobilize surge capacity. Once implemented, it is applicable to all patients, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, requiring critical care resources prior to ICU admission and during ICU stay.
CONCLUSIONS: The guideline development process for the allocation of critical care resources in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand was informed by scientific evidence, medico-legal context, existing norms and societal values to reduce risk of public distrust given the sensitive nature of the issue and ethical dilemmas of the guiding principle, though it was conducted at record speed. Our lessons can provide an insight for the development of similar prioritization guidelines, especially in other low- and middle-income countries.

UNASSIGNED: Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of cancer treatments; however, participation by patients is suboptimal. Currently, there is a lack of synthesized qualitative review evidence on the patient experience of trial entry from which to further develop decision support. The aim of this review is to synthesise literature reporting experiences of participants when deciding to enrol in a cancer clinical trial in order to inform practice.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted to describe the experiences of adult cancer patients who decided to enrol in a clinical trial of an anti-cancer treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Forty studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three themes were identified representing the overarching domains of experience when deciding to enrol in a cancer trial: 1) need for trial information; (2) trepidation towards participation; and (3) justifying the decision. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is one marked by uncertainty, emotional distress and driven by the search for a cure.
UNASSIGNED: Findings from this review show that decision support modelled by shared decision-making and the quality of a shared decision needs to be accompanied by tailored or personalised psychosocial and supportive care. Although the decision process bears similarities to theoretical processes outlined in decision-making frameworks, there are a lack of supportive interventions for cancer patients that are adapted to the clinical trial context. Theory-based interventions are urgently required to support the specific needs of patients deciding whether to participate in cancer trials.

UNASSIGNED: Prehospital care is integral in addressing sub-Saharan Africa\'s (SSA) high injury and illness burden. Consequently, robust, high-quality prehospital guidance documents are needed to inform care. These guidance documents include, but are not limited to, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), protocols and algorithms that are contextually appropriate for SSA. However, SSA prehospital guidance mostly originates from the \'Global North,\' with limited guidance for Africa by Africans. To strengthen prehospital clinical practice in SSA, we described and appraised all prehospital SSA guidance documents informing clinical decision making.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a scoping review of prehospital-relevant guidance documents, including CPGs, algorithms, protocols and position statements originating from SSA. We performed a comprehensive literature search in various databases (PUBMED and SCOPUS), guideline clearing houses (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Trip, and Guidelines International Network), journals, various forms of grey literature and contacted experts. Guidance document screening and data extraction was done independently, in duplicate and reviewed by a third author. Guidance quality was then determined using the AGREE II tool and data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics.
UNASSIGNED: We included 51 guidance documents from 13 countries across SSA after screening 2320 potential documents. The majority of guidance documents lacked an evidence foundation, made recommendations based on expert input, and were predominantly end-user presentations such as algorithms or protocols. Overall, reporting quality was poor, specifically for critical domains such as rigour of development; however, clarity of presentation was generally strong. Guidance topics were focused around resuscitation and common diseases (both communicable and non-communicable) with major gaps identified across a variety of topics; such as mental health for example.
UNASSIGNED: The majority of prehospital clinical guidance from SSA provides clinicians with excellent ready to use end-user material. Conversely, most of the guidance documents lack an appropriate evidence foundation and fail to transparently report the guidance development process, highlighting the need to strengthen and build guideline development capacity to promote the transition from eminence-based to evidence-based guidance for prehospital care in SSA. Guideline developers, professional societies and publishers need to be aware of international and local guidance document development and reporting standards in order to produce guidance we can trust.

The objective of this narrative review was to identify and evaluate published international guidelines on mandibular third molars (M3M) and to assess their clinical scope and the validity of the recommendations. The search strategy used data obtained from a variety of sources including MEDLINE, national regulatory bodies, national dental and surgical colleges and associations, and military medical departments. Adherence to clinical guideline development was investigated using the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation). Sixteen guidelines pertaining to M3M were included in this review. The guidelines produced by the Faculty of Dental Surgery of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (FDS RCS) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were recommended as meeting the criteria for use. Seven other guidelines were recommended but required modifications. The AGREE II instrument provides an excellent framework for guideline assessment. Unfortunately, very few guidelines scored highly across all domains and therefore were not believed to be of high quality. Due to the significant lack of structure and variable standards in guideline development, the conclusions and recommendations of these guidelines are compromised. There is a need for organizations involved in developing M3M guidelines to update guidance periodically in order to ensure that the information available to clinicians and patients is accurate and relevant to clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop practice guidelines, developers need to prioritize what topics and questions to address. This study aims to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines.
METHODS: We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. We included papers describing prioritization approaches in sufficient detail allowing for reproducibility. We synthesized findings in a semi-quantitative way. We followed an iterative process to develop a common framework of prioritization criteria that captures all of the criteria reported by each included study.
RESULTS: Our search captured 33,339 unique citations out of which we identified 10 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development. All of the identified approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics but none on prioritizing recommendation questions or outcomes. The two most frequently reported steps of the development process for these approaches were reviewing the grey literature (9 out of 10, 90%) and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%). We derived a common framework of 20 prioritization criteria that can be used when prioritizing guideline topics. The most frequently reported criteria were the health burden of disease which was included in all of the approaches, practice variation (8 out of 10, 80%), and impact on health outcomes (7 out of 10, 70%). Two of the identified approaches stood out as being comprehensive and detailed.
CONCLUSIONS: We described 10 prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines. There is a need to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the identified approaches and to develop standardized and validated priority setting tools.

As early as 1997, the German Guideline for Guidelines laid down patient participation in guideline development as the cornerstone of good, trustworthy medical guidelines. The German Guideline Assessment Tool (DELBI) published in 2005 requires patients or relatives to be involved in the development of medical guidelines. Ideally, this should be effected through membership in the author group. The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) recommends this approach for the so-called S3 guidelines (systematically developed guidelines) and S2k guidelines (consensus-based guidelines). The present study addresses the question of whether and to what extent German guideline publishers adhere to these principles of patient orientation.
For this purpose, a descriptive analysis of the guidelines valid at the beginning of November 2017 was carried out. All guidelines (n=520) of the AWMF member societies were assessed. We evaluated S3- and S2k guidelines only, as these are of particular importance for patient involvement due to the requirement of an interdisciplinary guideline group. Data were reported on the involvement of patients (as co-authors of medical guidelines) and on the existence of guidance documents addressing patients and the public (so-called patient information and patient guidelines).
Regarding the 105 (165) S3 (S2k) guidelines, we found evidence on patient involvement in guideline development in 99 (134) cases (94 % of S3 / 81 % of S2k guidelines). In 61 (87) guidelines, authors had contributed to the authors group (58 % / 53 %) and 59 (80) guidelines with voting rights (56 % / 48 %). For 50 (15) S3 (S2k) guidelines (48 % / 9 %), the guideline report provided information on the existence or planned development of guidance documents for patients and the public (patient guidelines or patient information). Guidance-related patient information was available on the internet for only 37 (2) S3 (S2k) guidelines (35 % / 2 %).
A substantial gap remains between patient / public involvement standards for guideline development and practice in Germany, even 12 years after the publication of national guideline standards. This is a missed opportunity since guidelines without adequate participation of those affected by the recommendations have a problem of legitimacy and transparency. Only guidelines where patients were involved in all voting processes during development build and strengthen trust between patients and the medical profession. And only those who present the rationale for medical recommendations in a generally understandable and comprehensible manner let affected individuals make individual decisions.

The judgment and decision making process during guideline development is central for producing high-quality clinical practice guidelines, but the topic is relatively underexplored in the guideline research literature. We have studied the development process of national guidelines with a disease-prevention scope produced by the National board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) in Sweden. The NBHW formal guideline development model states that guideline recommendations should be based on five decision-criteria: research evidence; curative/preventive effect size, severity of the condition; cost-effectiveness; and ethical considerations. A group of health profession representatives (i.e. a prioritization group) was assigned the task of ranking condition-intervention pairs for guideline recommendations, taking into consideration the multiple decision criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the decision making process during the two-year development of national guidelines for methods of preventing disease.
A qualitative inductive longitudinal case study approach was used to investigate the decision making process. Questionnaires, non-participant observations of nine two-day group meetings, and documents provided data for the analysis. Conventional and summative qualitative content analysis was used to analyse data.
The guideline development model was modified ad-hoc as the group encountered three main types of dilemmas: high quality evidence vs. low adoptability of recommendation; insufficient evidence vs. high urgency to act; and incoherence in assessment and prioritization within and between four different lifestyle areas. The formal guideline development model guided the decision-criteria used, but three new or revised criteria were added by the group: \'clinical knowledge and experience\', \'potential guideline consequences\' and \'needs of vulnerable groups\'. The frequency of the use of various criteria in discussions varied over time. Gender, professional status, and interpersonal skills were perceived to affect individuals\' relative influence on group discussions.
The study shows that guideline development groups make compromises between rigour and pragmatism. The formal guideline development model incorporated multiple aspects, but offered few details on how the different criteria should be handled. The guideline development model devoted little attention to the role of the decision-model and group-related factors. Guideline development models could benefit from clarifying the role of the group-related factors and non-research evidence, such as clinical experience and ethical considerations, in decision-processes during guideline development.