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.

Chronic tinnitus is a symptom of disturbed auditory perception. More than 90% of tinnitus patients suffer from hearing loss. Many people experience tinnitus and seek for treatment, but suffering and actual burden of tinnitus is individually very different, sometimes it disappears after a certain time even without treatment. This process is called habituation. The actual suffering from tinnitus depends on stress symptoms and other psychosomatic comorbidities like depression, anxiety and sleeping disorders.Up-to-date there is no therapy that can completely switch off tinnitus, mainly because the origin and expression of tinnitus are individual and very different. This educational publication summarizes and evaluates scientific therapeutic approaches for chronic tinnitus, based on the newly elaborated S3-Guideline \"Chronic Tinnitus\", under the lead management of the German Society of ENT, Head and Neck-Surgery, published in 2021. It focusses on recommendations for counselling, interventions against hearing loss and psychotherapy, mainly cognitive behavioural therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.
UNASSIGNED: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with an explanation of the support in the literature, the evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.
UNASSIGNED: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life. (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related quality of life at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

暂无摘要。

Acupuncture is one of the most effective complementary therapies for allergic rhinitis (AR) and has been recommended by several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for AR. However, these CPGs mentioned acupuncture without making recommendations for clinical implementation and therapeutic protocols, therefore limiting the applicability of acupuncture therapies for AR. Hence, for the benefit of acupuncture practitioners around the world, the World Federation of Acupuncture-moxibustion Societies have initiated a project to develop the CPG for the use of acupuncture and moxibustion to treat AR. This CPG was developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, referring to the principles of the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. During the development of the CPG, the guideline development group (GDG) played an important role. The clinical questions, recommendations and therapeutic protocols were all formulated by the GDG using the modified Delphi method. The CPG contains recommendations for 15 clinical questions about the use of acupuncture and moxibustion interventions. These include one strong recommendation for the intervention based on high-quality evidence, three conditional recommendations for either the intervention or standard care, and 11 conditional recommendations for the intervention based on very low quality of evidence. The CPG also provides one filiform needle acupuncture protocol and five moxibustion protocols extracted based on the protocols presented in randomized controlled trials reviewed by the GDG. Please cite this article as: Du SH, Chen S, Wang SZ, Wang GQ, Du S, Guo W, Xie XL, Peng BH, Yang C, Zhao JP. Clinical practice guideline for acupuncture and moxibustion: Allergic rhinitis. J Integr Med. 2024; 22(3): 245-257.

OBJECTIVE: Qualitative methodologies are commonly adopted in hearing loss research. Grounded theory methodology is increasingly used to establish novel theories explaining experiences related to hearing loss. Establishing and improving the quality of grounded theory studies has been emphasized as critical to ensuring theoretical trustworthiness. Thus, the primary aim of the present study was to systematically review hearing loss research studies that have applied grounded theory methodology and assess the methodological quality of those grounded theory applications. Secondarily aims were to (i) explore how grounded theory methodology has been applied to investigate hearing loss, and (ii) use the findings of the review to develop a set of guidelines to aid the future high-quality application of grounded theory methodology to hearing loss research.
METHODS: Original peer-reviewed studies applying grounded theory methodology and published in English were identified through systematic searches in 10 databases; Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EBSCO, Global Health, MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The quality of studies was assessed according to 12 grounded theory principles using the Guideline for Reporting, Evaluating, and applying the core principles of Grounded Theory studies (GUREGT) tool. Data were analyzed using qualitative inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: After the removal of duplicates, 155 articles were retrieved. Of those, 39 met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. An increase in the adoption of grounded theory methodology to investigate hearing loss was identified with the number of published studies tripling in the last 5 years. Critical appraisal using the GUREGT tool identified four studies as high-quality. Most included studies were of moderate study quality (n = 25), and 10 were classified as being of low study quality. Using inductive thematic analysis, the included studies investigated one of four areas relating to hearing loss: (a) Living with hearing loss, (b) Identity and hearing loss, (c) Coping strategies for hearing loss, and (d) Audiological counseling and rehabilitation. Analysis also identified four main grounded theory factors frequently overlooked in hearing loss research: the different schools of grounded theory, sampling strategy, sample size, and the depth of grounded theory application.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of grounded theory methodology is increasing at a rapid rate in hearing loss research. Despite this, studies conducted in the field to date do not meet and apply the full spectrum of grounded theory principles, as outlined by the GUREGT tool. To improve methodological rigor in future studies using grounded theory, we propose a set of guidelines that address the most commonly overlooked methodological considerations in hearing loss studies to date. The guidelines are designed to aid researchers to achieve high methodological quality in any field, improve qualitative rigor, and promote theoretical credibility.

Acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia often requires a comprehensive approach that includes non-pharmacological strategies such as non-invasive support (including positive pressure modes, high flow therapy or awake proning) in addition to oxygen therapy, with the primary goal of avoiding endotracheal intubation. Clinical issues such as determining the optimal time to initiate non-invasive support, choosing the most appropriate modality (based not only on the acute clinical picture but also on comorbidities), establishing criteria for recognition of treatment failure and strategies to follow in this setting (including palliative care), or implementing de-escalation procedures when improvement occurs are of paramount importance in the ongoing management of severe COVID-19 cases. Organizational issues, such as the most appropriate setting for management and monitoring of the severe COVID-19 patient or protective measures to prevent virus spread to healthcare workers in the presence of aerosol-generating procedures, should also be considered. While many early clinical guidelines during the pandemic were based on previous experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the landscape has evolved since then. Today, we have a wealth of high-quality studies that support evidence-based recommendations to address these complex issues. This document, the result of a collaborative effort between four leading scientific societies (SEDAR, SEMES, SEMICYUC, SEPAR), draws on the experience of 25 experts in the field to synthesize knowledge to address pertinent clinical questions and refine the approach to patient care in the face of the challenges posed by severe COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of long-term, often asymptomatic, middle ear infection in young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is more likely to be achieved when ear health and hearing checks are routinely undertaken in primary healthcare. Evidence consistently demonstrates the adverse impacts of this condition on the development and wellbeing of children and their families. We aimed to develop feasible, evidence- and consensus-based primary healthcare recommendations addressing the components and timing of ear health and hearing checks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged under 6 years, not already known to have, nor being actively managed for, ear and hearing problems.
METHODS: A 22-person working group comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous members from the primary healthcare, ear, hearing, and research sectors provided guidance of the project. A systematic scoping review addressed research questions relating to primary health ear health and hearing checks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other populations at increased risk of persistent ear health problems. Twelve primary studies and eleven guidelines published between 1998 and 2020 were identified and reviewed. Quality and certainty of evidence and risk of bias ratings were completed for studies and guidelines. In the absence of certain and direct evidence, findings and draft recommendations were presented for consensus input to a 79-member expert panel using a modified e-Delphi process. Recommendations were finalised in consultation with working group members and presented to expert panel members for input on considerations relating to implementation.
RESULTS: Overall, the quality, certainty, and directness of evidence in the studies and guidelines reviewed was low. However, the findings provided a basis and structure for the draft recommendations presented during the consensus-building process. After two e-Delphi rounds, seven goals and eight recommendations on the components and timing of Ear Health and Hearing Checks in primary healthcare for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were developed.
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic scoping review and consensus-building process provided a pragmatic approach for producing strong recommendations within a reasonably short timeframe, despite the low quality and certainty of evidence, and paucity of studies pertaining to primary healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.
UNASSIGNED: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients\' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient\'s history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.