Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper
Abstract: Objectives
The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1–2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields.
Study Design and Setting
We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group.
Results
A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan.
Conclusion
An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest
- Standort
-
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
- Umfang
-
Online-Ressource
- Sprache
-
Englisch
- Anmerkungen
-
Journal of clinical epidemiology. - 129, 1 (2021) , 1-11, ISSN: 1878-5921
- Ereignis
-
Veröffentlichung
- (wo)
-
Freiburg
- (wer)
-
Universität
- (wann)
-
2021
- Urheber
- DOI
-
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.037
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-1743548
- Rechteinformation
-
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
- Letzte Aktualisierung
-
15.08.2025, 07:24 MESZ
Datenpartner
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Beteiligte
- Akl, Elie A.
- Meerpohl, Jörg J.
- Schünemann, Holger
- Universität
Entstanden
- 2021
Ähnliche Objekte (12)
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions
Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions
Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions
Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence