Research CMAJ Background:Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. Methods:We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. Results:We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. Interpretation:The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date. Abstract

The literature review confirmed a strong association between current smoking and AMD, which fulfilled established causality criteria. Cigarette smoking is likely to have toxic effects on the retina. In spite of the strength of this evidence, there appears to be a lack of awareness about the risks of developing eye disease from smoking among both healthcare professionals and the general public.

BackgroundHealthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear.MethodsGRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines.DiscussionResults of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally.

BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are typically written for healthcare providers but there is increasing interest in producing versions for the public, patients and carers. The main objective of this review is to identify and synthesise evidence of the public’s attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based recommendations written for providers or the public, together with their awareness of guidelines.MethodsWe included quantitative and qualitative studies of any design reporting on public, patient (and their carers) attitudes and awareness of guidelines written for providers or patients/public. We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, ERIC, ASSIA and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2012. We also searched relevant websites, reviewed citations and contacted experts in the field. At least two authors independently screened, abstracted data and assessed the quality of studies. We conducted a thematic analysis of first and second order themes and performed a separate narrative synthesis of patient and public awareness of guidelines.ResultsWe reviewed 5415 records and included 26 studies (10 qualitative studies, 13 cross sectional and 3 randomised controlled trials) involving 24 887 individuals. Studies were mostly good to fair quality. The thematic analysis resulted in four overarching themes: Applicability of guidelines; Purpose of guidelines for patient; Purpose of guidelines for health care system and physician; and Properties of guidelines. Overall, participants had mixed attitudes towards guidelines; some participants found them empowering but many saw them as a way of rationing care. Patients were also concerned that the information may not apply to their own health care situations. Awareness of guidelines ranged from 0-79%, with greater awareness in participants surveyed on national guideline websites.ConclusionThere are many factors, not only formatting, that may affect the uptake and use of guideline-derived material by the public. Producers need to make clear how the information is relevant to the reader and how it can be used to make healthcare improvements although there were problems with data quality. Awareness of guidelines is generally low and guideline producers cannot assume that the public has a more positive perception of their material than of alternative sources of health information.

Objective. Inflammatory arthritis in childhood is variable in terms of both presentation and outcome. This analysis describes disease activity in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) during the first year following presentation to a paediatric rheumatologist and identifies predictors of moderate to severe disability [defined using a Childhood HAQ (CHAQ) score ⩾0.75] at 1 year.Methods. The Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study recruits children <16 years with new inflammatory arthritis persisting for ⩾2 weeks from five UK tertiary referral centres. Demographics, disease features, joint count, CHAQ, physician's global assessment, parent's general evaluation of well-being (PGE), ESR and treatment, are collected at first presentation, 6 months and then yearly. Independent predictors of CHAQ ⩾0.75 at 1 year in children diagnosed with JIA were identified using multivariable logistic regression models.Results. Seven hundred and forty children with JIA were included; median age at presentation 7.6 years, 64% girls. During the first year, 85% received NSAIDs, 70% IA corticosteroids, 47% MTX and 27% systemic steroids (oral or i.v.). Median presenting CHAQ score was 0.63 and decreased to 0.25 at 1 year; 32% had CHAQ ⩾0.75 at 1 year. The strongest predictor of CHAQ ⩾0.75 at 1 year was CHAQ ⩾0.75 at presentation (odds ratio 3.92; 95% CI 2.17, 7.09). Additional predictors included female gender and higher PGEConclusion. Although CHAQ score improved in most children, the strongest predictor of persistent disability at 1 year was moderate to severe disability at first presentation. Follow-up beyond 1 year will assess whether CHAQ at presentation will continue to be a predictor of future poor outcome.

Several risk factors for the development of cataract have been identified. This review evaluates epidemiologic literature that has examined tobacco smoking as a risk factor for cataract formation using established causality criteria. Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Evidence suggests that smoking has a 3-fold increase on the risk for incident nuclear cataract development. There was also evidence of dose response, temporal relationship, and reversibility of effect. There was limited evidence of an association between smoking and posterior subcapsular cataract, but little or no association with cortical cataract. Thus, the literature review indicated a strong association between smoking and the development of cataract, particularly nuclear cataract. The association fulfills the established criteria for causality. The association between smoking and other types of cataract is less distinct and requires further evaluation.

No abstract

Background: Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public. The aim of this study was to explore what patients and the public understand about the purpose and production of clinical guidelines, and what they want from clinical guidelines to support their healthcare decisions.