BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guideline and vaccination recommendations should continuously be updated to appropriately support health care decisions. However, resources for updating guidelines are often limited. The aim of this project was to develop a list of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline or vaccination recommendations, which can be applied from the time a guideline or guideline update is finalised.
METHODS: In this article we describe the development of the AGIL criteria (Assessment of Guidelines for Updating Recommendations). The AGIL criteria were developed by experienced scientists and experts in the field of guideline development in a multi-step process. The five steps included: 1) development of an initial list of criteria by the project team; 2) online survey of guideline experts on the initial version of the criteria list; 3) revision of the criteria list based on the results of the online survey; 4) workshop on the criteria list at the EbM Congress 2023; 5) creation of version 1.0 of the AGIL criteria based on the workshop results.
RESULTS: The initial list included the following three criteria: 1) relevance of the question 2) availability of new relevant evidence, and 3) impact of potentially new evidence. The response rate of the online survey for fully completed questionnaires was 31.0% (N=195; 630 guideline experts were contacted by email). For 90.3% (n=176) of the respondents, the criteria list included all essential aspects for assessing the need for updating guideline recommendations. More than three quarters of respondents rated the importance of the three criteria as \"very important\" or \"important\" (criteria 1-3: 75.3%, 86.1%, 85.2%) and - with the exception of criterion 1 - comprehensibility as \"very comprehensible\" or \"comprehensible\" (criteria 1-3: 58.4%, 75.9%, 78.5%). The results of the online survey and the workshop generally confirmed the three criteria with their two sub-questions. The incorporation of all feedback resulted in the AGIL criteria (version 1.0), recapping: 1) relevance of the question regarding a) PICO components and b) other factors, e.g. epidemiological aspects; 2) availability of new evidence a) on health-related benefits and harms and b) on other decision factors, e.g. feasibility, acceptability; 3) impact of new evidence a) on the certainty of evidence on which the recommendation is based and b) on the present recommendation, e.g.
METHODS:
CONCLUSIONS: The moderate response rate of the online survey may have limited its representativeness. Nevertheless, we consider the response rate to be satisfactory in this research context. The inclusion of many experts in the online survey and the EbM Congress workshop is a strength of the project and supports the quality of the results.
CONCLUSIONS: The AGIL criteria provide a structured guidance for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline recommendations and other evidence-based recommendations. The implementation and evaluation of the AGIL criteria 1.0 in a field test is planned.

We aimed to develop a checklist to aid guideline developers in determining which scientific or societal cause (\"triggers\") are relevant when considering to initiate a rapid recommendation procedure.
We conducted a two-round modified Delphi procedure with a panel of Dutch guideline experts, clinicians, and patient representatives. A previously conducted systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with four science journalists were used to generate a list of potential items. This item list was submitted to the panel for discussion, reduction and refinement into a checklist.
Thirteen experts took part. Two questionnaires were completed in which participants scored an initial list of 64 items based on relevance. During two online meetings, the scores were discussed, irrelevant items were removed, and relevant items were reformulated into seven questions. The final \"quickscan assessment of the need for a rapid recommendation\" covers user perspective, scientific evidence, clinical relevance, clinical practice variation, applicability, quality of care and public health outcomes, and ethical/legal considerations.
The quickscan aids guideline developers in systematically assessing whether a trigger expresses a valid need for developing a rapid recommendation. Future research could focus on the applicability and validity of the checklist within guideline development programs.

The development of high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) takes substantial time, effort, and resources. During the past years, the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) guideline production was significantly increased, so the need to develop clear, transparent, and methodologically solid criteria for prioritizing guideline topics became apparent. With this paper, we aim to define a set of criteria to be applied for prioritizing topics for future EAN guidelines, as well as the procedure for their implementation.
After review of the literature, we identified a recent systematic review that reported on the main prioritization criteria used by health organizations. Based on these, we developed a list of 20 preliminary criteria, which were voted on through a Delphi consensus procedure, including 160 stakeholders. Finally, we established a working procedure on how to submit and select new guideline topic proposals within the EAN. This procedure was reviewed by the EAN Scientific Committee and the Board.
The first round, 61.3% of the participants voted, and 86% of them participated in the second round. Seven criteria were approved with this procedure. After the selection of the criteria, a prioritization procedure was launched, and the first 30 topics are reported in this paper. This bottom-up process that involved the whole EAN community was followed by a top-down process, using additional criteria for further selection by the EAN board members.
We describe the development of prioritization criteria to be applied in the process of topic selection for future EAN CPGs. We will perform regular reviews and adjustments of the process.

The growing demand for referrals is a main policy concern in health systems. One approach involves the development of demand management tools in the form of clinical prioritization to regulate patient referrals from primary care to specialist care. For clinical prioritization to be effective, it is critical that general practitioners (GPs) assess patient priority in the same way as specialists. The progressive development of IT tools in clinical practice, in the form of electronic referrals support systems (e-RSS), can facilitate clinical prioritization. In this study, we tested if higher use of e-RSS or higher use of high-priority categories was associated with the degree of agreement and therefore consensus on clinical priority between GPs and specialists. We found that higher use by GPs of the e-RSS tool was positively associated with greater degree of priority agreement with specialists, while higher use of the high-priority categories was associated with lower degree of priority agreement with specialists. Furthermore, female GPs, GPs in association with others, and GPs using a specific electronic medical record showed higher agreement with specialists. Our study therefore supports the use of electronic referrals systems to improve clinical prioritization and manage the demand of specialist visits and diagnostic tests. It also shows that there is scope for reducing excessive use by GPs of high-priority categories.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a care reorganization was mandatory, and affected patients in different areas, including management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. This work aims to provide validated schedule concerning the assessment and management of patients in neuro-urology.
METHODS: Based on a literature review and their own expertise, a steering committee composed of urologists and physical medicine and rehabilitation practitioners generated a comprehensive risk-situation list and built a risk scale. A panel of French-speaking experts in neuro-urology was asked to define the timing for each clinical situation and validated these new recommendations through a Delphi process approach.
RESULTS: The 49 experts included in the rating group validated 163 propositions among the 206 initial items. The propositions were divided into four domains - diagnosis and assessment, treatment, follow-up, and complications - and two sub-domains - general (applicable for all neurological conditions) and condition-specific (varying according to the neurological condition (spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, Parkinsonism, spinal dysraphism, lower motor neuron lesions)).
CONCLUSIONS: This multidisciplinary collaborative work generates recommendations based on expert opinion, providing a validated timing for assessment and management of patients in neuro-urology which may help clinicians to reorganize their patients\' list with a personalized medicine approach, in a context of health crisis or not.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group (GORRG) defined priority groups to guide the prioritization of surgery for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this study we explored the diversity and predictors of histopathological findings across the EAU GORRG priority groups using a large database of 1734 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for nonmetastatic renal masses between 2017 and 2020 at a referral institution. Overall, 940 (54.2%), 358 (20.6%), and 436 (25.2%) patients were classified as low-, intermediate-, and high-priority, respectively. The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups significantly differed regarding all primary histopathological outcomes: benign histology (21.6% vs 15.9% vs 6.4%; p < 0.001); non-organ-confined disease (5.0% vs 19.0% vs 45.4%; p < 0.001); and adverse pathological features according to validated prognostic models (including the median Leibovich score for clear-cell RCC: 0 vs 2 vs 4; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, beyond the EAU GORRG priority groups, specific patient and/or tumor-related characteristics were independent predictors of the aforementioned histopathological outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, our study shows for the first time the value of the EAU GORRG priority groups from a histopathological standpoint and supports implementation of such a prioritization scheme beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
UNASSIGNED: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Association of Urology designed a scheme to prioritize patients needing surgery for kidney cancer according to their tumor characteristics and symptoms. We used results from our hospital database to test the scheme and found that the priority classification can be used to predict cancer outcomes after surgery. This scheme may be useful in prioritizing kidney cancer surgeries after the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The current health crisis has drastically impacted patient management in many fields, including neuro-urology, leading to a mandatory reorganization. The aim of this work was to establish guidelines regarding the prioritization and optimal timing of each step of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction management.
METHODS: A steering committee included urologists and physical medicine and rehabilitation practitioners. Based on a literature review and their own expertise, they established a comprehensive risk-situation list and built a risk scale, allowing multiple other experts to score each clinical situation. New recommendations were generated using a Delphi process approach.
RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the rating group. Among the 206 initial items, 163 were selected and divided into four domains, diagnosis and assessment, treatment, follow-up, and complications, and two sub-domains, general (applicable for all neurological conditions) and condition-specific [varying according to the neurological condition (spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, Parkinsonism, dysraphism, lower motor neuron lesions)]. The resulted guidelines are expert opinions established by a panel of French-speaking specialists, which could limit the scalability of this work.
CONCLUSIONS: The present multidisciplinary collaborative work generates recommendations which complement existing guidelines and help clinicians to reorganize their patients\' list in the long term with a personalized medicine approach, in the context of health crisis or not.

暂无摘要。

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.

The WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage published a comprehensive report titled \"Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage\" detailing strategies that countries should adopt when moving towards providing healthcare coverage to the entire population. The report provides detailed guidelines on how to expand coverage to more people, what services should be covered, and how to prioritize these healthcare resources in achieving universal healthcare coverage (UHC). The main goal of this WHO report is to ensure fair and equitable access for all population groups within a country during the implementation of UHC. In principle, the group\'s approach is sound and fair, but we argue that each country must take into account its own unique situations in designing a pathway towards UHC. China has achieved near UHC but did so by an approach that would have been deemed completely unacceptable based on this group\'s recommendations. In this article, we provide a brief review of the Chinese healthcare system and argue that the implementation of the recommendations in the report is not always feasible. We argue that there are alternate pathways towards achieving UHC and there are good reasons for China\'s departure from the approach outlined by the WHO report. Nevertheless, we acknowledge substantial inequities still exist for various segments of the population and among the diverse areas of China in accessing healthcare services and make suggestions on how to reduce such inequities within the system.