TY - JOUR
T1 - Living systematic reviews 4. Living guideline recommendations
AU - Living Systematic Review Network
AU - Akl, Elie A.
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg J.
AU - Elliott, Julian
AU - Kahale, Lara A.
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
AU - Agoritsas, Thomas
AU - Hilton, John
AU - Perron, Caroline
AU - Hodder, Rebecca
AU - Pestridge, Charlotte
AU - Albrecht, Lauren
AU - Horsley, Tanya
AU - Platt, Joanne
AU - Armstrong, Rebecca
AU - Nguyen, Phi Hung
AU - Plovnick, Robert
AU - Arno, Anneliese
AU - Ivers, Noah
AU - Quinn, Gail
AU - Au, Agnes
AU - Johnston, Renea
AU - Rada, Gabriel
AU - Bagg, Matthew
AU - Jones, Arwel
AU - Ravaud, Philippe
AU - Boden, Catherine
AU - Richter, Bernt
AU - Boisvert, Isabelle
AU - Keshavarz, Homa
AU - Ryan, Rebecca
AU - Brandt, Linn
AU - Kolakowsky-Hayner, Stephanie A.
AU - Salama, Dina
AU - Brazinova, Alexandra
AU - Nagraj, Sumanth Kumbargere
AU - Salanti, Georgia
AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle
AU - Lasserson, Toby
AU - Santaguida, Lina
AU - Champion, Chris
AU - Lawrence, Rebecca
AU - Santesso, Nancy
AU - Chandler, Jackie
AU - Les, Zbigniew
AU - Charidimou, Andreas
AU - Leucht, Stefan
AU - Shemilt, Ian
AU - Chou, Roger
AU - Low, Nicola
AU - Sherifali, Diana
AU - Churchill, Rachel
AU - Maas, Andrew
AU - Siemieniuk, Reed
AU - Cnossen, Maryse C.
AU - MacLehose, Harriet
AU - Simmonds, Mark
AU - Cossi, Marie Joelle
AU - Macleod, Malcolm
AU - Skoetz, Nicole
AU - Counotte, Michel
AU - Marshall, Iain
AU - Soares-Weiser, Karla
AU - Craigie, Samantha
AU - Marshall, Rachel
AU - Srikanth, Velandai
AU - Dahm, Philipp
AU - Martin, Nicole
AU - Sullivan, Katrina
AU - Danilkewich, Alanna
AU - García, Laura Martínez
AU - Synnot, Anneliese
AU - Danko, Kristen
AU - Mavergames, Chris
AU - Taylor, Mark
AU - Donoghue, Emma
AU - Maxwell, Lara J.
AU - Thayer, Kris
AU - Dressler, Corinna
AU - McAuley, James
AU - Thomas, James
AU - Egan, Cathy
AU - McDonald, Steve
AU - Tritton, Roger
AU - McKenzie, Joanne
AU - Tsafnat, Guy
AU - Elliott, Sarah A.
AU - Tugwell, Peter
AU - Etxeandia, Itziar
AU - Merner, Bronwen
AU - Turgeon, Alexis
AU - Featherstone, Robin
AU - Mondello, Stefania
AU - Turner, Tari
AU - Foxlee, Ruth
AU - Morley, Richard
AU - van Valkenhoef, Gert
AU - Garner, Paul
AU - Munafo, Marcus
AU - Vandvik, Per
AU - Gerrity, Martha
AU - Munn, Zachary
AU - Wallace, Byron
AU - Glasziou, Paul
AU - Murano, Melissa
AU - Wallace, Sheila A.
AU - Green, Sally
AU - Newman, Kristine
AU - Watts, Chris
AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy
AU - Nieuwlaat, Robby
AU - Weeks, Laura
AU - Gurusamy, Kurinchi
AU - Nikolakopoulou, Adriani
AU - Weigl, Aaron
AU - Haddaway, Neal
AU - Noel-Storr, Anna
AU - Wells, George
AU - Hartling, Lisa
AU - O'Connor, Annette
AU - Wiercioch, Wojtek
AU - Hayden, Jill
AU - Page, Matthew
AU - Wolfenden, Luke
AU - Helfand, Mark
AU - Pahwa, Manisha
AU - Yepes Nuñez, Juan José
AU - Higgins, Julian
AU - Pardo, Jordi Pardo
AU - Yost, Jennifer
AU - Hill, Sophie
AU - Pearson, Leslea
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/11/1
Y1 - 2017/11/1
N2 - While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of “living guidelines” realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.
AB - While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of “living guidelines” realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028968915&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28911999
AN - SCOPUS:85028968915
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 91
SP - 47
EP - 53
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -