Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are statements informed by a systematic review of research/evidence and provide recommendations for clinical practice to improve healthcare quality and patient outcomes. The National Association of School Nurses (NASN) released School Nursing Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Students with Allergies and Risk for Anaphylaxis, in 2023, to provide evidence-based recommendations specific to school nursing practice and support the role of the school nurse in providing high-quality care for school-age children with allergies and risk for anaphylaxis. This article will provide an overview of the CPG and Implementation Toolkit. The implementation toolkit is designed to provide school nurses with tools and resources to implement the recommendations into practice. These tools and resources include school policies; nursing assessments and intake; planning, training, implementing, and evaluating care; and data collection. Examples are discussed, including how to customize the toolkit resources to your current practice needs.

UNASSIGNED: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined.
UNASSIGNED: Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%).
UNASSIGNED: The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Physical restraint has been regarded as a protective measure in the intensive care unit (ICU) in order to avoid unexpected events. But a great number of researches have proven that physical restraints can cause bad influences on patients\' mental health, such as language delays of children, sense of uncertainty, loss of trust, etc. However, it is unclear whether there are currently high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to guide clinical practice in physical restraints. So we aim to analyze available CPGs on physical restraints in ICU with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) evaluating methodological quality and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) evaluating reporting quality.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, CNKI (Chinese database), Wanfang data (Chinese database), relevant websites (GIN, NICE, SIGN, RNAO, AHRQ, AACN), and Google from their inception to Nov 21, 2021. Two reviewers independently use the AGREE II tool and RIGHT checklist to evaluate methodological and reporting quality of included guidelines on physical restraints in ICU. The number and proportion of reported items of RIGHT checklist and the scores of each domain of AGREE II were calculated. We also evaluated the consistency among the reviewers via use of the intragroup correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: A total of six guidelines were included. The mean AGREE II score for the included guidelines was 39.56% with a range of 30.27-69.85%. No guideline was \"high quality\", and only one guideline was \"moderate quality\" with 69.85% mean AGREE II score. The mean RIGHT reporting score for guidelines was 41.0% with a range of 24.7-77.7%. Only one guideline was \"moderate-reported\" with a mean reporting score of 77.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, the methodological and reporting quality of physical restraints guidelines is low, and future development or updating of high-quality guidelines to guide clinical practice is needed.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) help to translate best available evidence into clinical practice but can be challenging to keep current due to their resource intensive nature. A \'living\' process that is used to continually update CPGs may therefore be of value.
METHODS: This pilot study assesses the development of a living CPG protocol based on the CanPainSCI CPG. Two \'living CPG\' update searches were performed; resource costs and acceptability were assessed.
RESULTS: Two updates were completed over 3 years. Literature searches and data extraction were completed by trainees on 119 and 58 papers. 8 papers were included and reviewed by 14 expert panel members. Resource usage included a total 43 hours of screening by trainees at $2356 (USD), 24 hours of expert panel review at $3141 (USD) and 30 hours of project management at $3241 (USD). Reviewers were generally satisfied with the process. All reviewers agreed that incorporating a living guidelines approach would be useful.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper outlines the process of maintaining a CPG through a living guideline process and provides resource costs and acceptability data which may aid stakeholders in the development of future CPGs.

UNASSIGNED: The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement is a set of recommendations for reporting in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to use RIGHT to evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on prostate cancer.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched literature databases and websites from January 1, 2018 to December 1, 2020 to identify CPGs on prostate cancer. Two investigators reviewed the identified articles and assessed the reporting quality independently by using the RIGHT checklist. We reported the proportions of guidelines that complied with each of the 35 RIGHT checklist item and the mean reporting compliance percentages for each of the seven domains of RIGHT.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 38 CPGs were included. The mean overall reporting rate over the included CPGs was 51.6%. Eighteen items were reported by more than half of the guidelines four items (1a 3, 7a and 13a) were reported by all guidelines. Items 7b (10.5%), 13b (10.5%), 14c (13.2%), and 18b (7.9%) had the lowest reporting proportions. The mean reporting rates in each RIGHT domain were 74.6% for \"Basic Information\", 26.3% for \"Review and quality assurance\", 59.9% for \"Background\", 43.7% for \"Evidence\", 43.2% for \"Recommendations\", 43.4% for \"Funding and declaration and management of interests\", and 43.0% for \"Other information\".
UNASSIGNED: The overall adherence of CPGs on prostate cancer to RIGHT checklist is poor. Following the RIGHT checklist during the development of the guideline could improve the quality of reporting in the future.

BACKGROUND: The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) instrument was launched in 2016 to improve the reporting of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on melanoma using RIGHT.
METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases and medical society websites until November 2020 to identify guidelines for melanoma published since 2018. The reporting quality of included guidelines was assessed by calculating the percentages of the 35 items of the RIGHT checklist that were appropriately reported. We stratified the results by selected characteristics to describe the correlation of these factors with reporting quality.
RESULTS: A total of 20 guidelines were identified and analyzed. The mean reporting rate was greater than 50% in five of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist; the remaining two domains (Other information, Review and quality assurance) both had a mean reporting rate of 35.0%. The mean overall reporting rate was 63.7%. No CPG considered equity, feasibility or acceptability of the recommendations (item 14c), and only one CPG described the role of funders (item 18b). Guidelines that reported funding or were published in higher-impact journals tended to have a higher reporting quality, whereas the reporting rate in the one included Chinese-language CPG was low.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting quality of melanoma CPGs tends to be relatively good. The CPGs developed in China were however an exception. The use of the 2016 RIGHT tool in guideline development should be encouraged to support rigorous and transparent reporting.

UNASSIGNED: The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) statement is a set of recommendations for the reporting in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to assess the reporting quality of CPGs for pancreatic cancer following the RIGHT checklist.
UNASSIGNED: Guidelines for pancreatic cancer were identified by searching electronic databases, guideline databases, and medical society websites. The reporting quality was evaluated by calculating the adherence to the items of the RIGHT checklist and summarizing them over the seven domains and the entire checklist. We also present results stratified by selected characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 22 guidelines were found eligible. Mean overall adherence to the RIGHT items was 60.0%. All guidelines adhered to the RIGHT items 3, 7a, 13a, while no guidelines reported the items 14c or 18b, which are some of the topics dealing with rationale for recommendations and funding source, respectively. Of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, \"Review and quality assurance\" and \"Funding and declaration and management of interests\" had the lowest reporting rates (25.0% and 43.2%, respectively); the remaining five domains had reporting rates >50%. CPGs that reported funding support, were published in higher-impact journals, and that applied a grading system for the quality of evidence, tended to have higher reporting rates.
UNASSIGNED: Our results show that reporting quality of pancreatic cancer CPGs still needs to be improved. The use of the RIGHT statement should be encouraged when developing new guidelines.

BACKGROUND: To systematically assess the consistency of recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).
METHODS: We systematically searched relevant literature databases and websites to identify CPGs related to NSCLC. We extracted the general characteristics of the included guidelines and their recommendations and descriptively compared and analyzed the consistency of recommendations across the guidelines.
RESULTS: A total of 28 NSCLC guidelines were retrieved. The recommendations covered mainly diagnosis and treatment. The recommendations in the guidelines differed substantially in various topics, such as the application of positron emission tomography (PET) and the classification of stage III. Fourteen guidelines divided stage III into two types: operable and inoperable; and the remaining 14 guidelines into three sub-stages IIIA, IIIB and IIIC. Recommendations regarding the treatment in stage III were relatively inconsistent. In driver gene (EGFR, ALK, ROS1) positive patients, targeted therapy was the most common recommendation for first-line treatment, but recommendations regarding second-line treatment varied according to the site of the mutation. In driver gene negative patients, immunotherapy was the most frequently recommended option as both first- and second-line treatment, followed by chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: A number of countries are devoting themselves to develop NSCLC guidelines and the process of updating guidelines is accelerating, yet recommendations between guidelines are not consistent. We adopted a systematic review method to systematically search and analyze the NSCLC guidelines worldwide. We objectively reviewed the differences in recommendations for NSCLC diagnosis and treatment between the guidelines. Inconsistency of recommendations across guidelines can result from multiple potential reasons. Such as, the guidelines developed time, different countries and regions and many more. Poor consistency across CPGs can confuse the guideline users, and we therefore advocate paying more attention to examining the controversies and updating guidelines timely to improve the consistency among CPGs. Our study had also several limitations, we limited the search to CPGs published in Chinese or English, the interpretation of recommendations is inherently subjective, we did not evaluate the details of the clinical content of the CPG recommendations. Our research presents the current status of NSCLC guidelines worldwide and give the opportunity to pay more attention to the existing gaps. Further investigations should determine the reasons for inconsistency, the implications for recommendation development, and the role of synthesis across recommendations for optimal guidance of clinical care treatment. With the continuous revision and update of the guidelines, we are confident that future guidelines will be formulated with higher quality to form clear, definite and consistent recommendations for NSCLC diagnosis and treatment.

UNASSIGNED: The reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gliomas has not yet been thoroughly assessed. The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement developed in 2016 provides a reporting framework to improve the quality of CPGs. We aimed to estimate the reporting quality of glioma guidelines using the RIGHT checklist and investigate how the reporting quality differs by selected characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases, and medical society websites to retrieve CPGs on glioma published between 2018 and 2020. We calculated the compliance of the CPGs to individual items, domains and the RIGHT checklist overall. We performed stratified analyses by publication year, country of development, reporting of funding, and impact factor (IF) of the journal.
UNASSIGNED: Our search revealed 20 eligible guidelines. Mean overall adherence to the RIGHT statement was 54.6%. Eight CPGs reported more than 60% of the items, and five reported less than 50%. All guidelines adhered to the items 1a, 3, 7a, 13a, while no guidelines reported the items 17 or 18b (see http://www.right-statement.org/right-statement/checklist for a description of the items). Two of the seven domains, \"Basic information\" and \"Background\", had mean reporting rates above 60%. The \"Review and quality assurance\" domain had the lowest mean reporting rate, 12.5%. The reporting quality of guidelines published in 2020, guidelines developed in the United States, and guidelines that reported funding tended to be above average.
UNASSIGNED: The reporting quality of CPGs on gliomas is low and needs improvement. Particular attention should be paid on reporting the external review and quality assurance process. The use of the RIGHT criteria should be encouraged to guide the development, reporting and evaluation of CPGs.

This paper presents a critique of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that standardize the use of race as a proxy for biological difference in medical settings. Drawing on the illustrative example of a pediatric UTI testing guideline, we contend that when CPGs necessitate that Black patients meet a higher threshold of illness severity or duration than their non-Black counterparts to receive comparable medical testing or other medical care, they function as mesolevel sites of race-racism reification processes (see Sewell, 2016) that contribute to the reproduction of racial health disparities. We describe broader implications and make recommendations for the conceptualization and implementation of future research in the sociological study of race, health, and medicine.