IntroductionExtensive research has been undertaken over the last 30 years on the methods underpinning clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), including their development, updating, reporting, tailoring for specific purposes, implementation and evaluation. This has resulted in an increasing number of terms, tools and acronyms. Over time, CPGs have shifted from opinion-based to evidence-informed, including increasingly sophisticated methodologies and implementation strategies, and thus keeping abreast of evolution in this field of research can be challenging.MethodsThis article collates findings from an extensive document search, to provide a guide describing standards, methods and systems reported in the current CPG methodology and implementation literature. This guide is targeted at those working in health care quality and safety and responsible for either commissioning, researching or delivering health care. It is presented in a way that can be updated as the field expands.ConclusionCPG development and implementation have attracted the most international interest and activity, whilst CPG updating, adopting (with or without contextualization), adapting and impact evaluation are less well addressed.

Background: All the reported measures of sitting posture, as well as photographs, have one flaw, as these measures are external to the body. These measures use calculations from external bony landmarks to estimate spinal posture, on the understanding that what is being measured externally reflects the shape, health and performance of structures of the underlying spine. Without a comparative measure of the relative position of the structures of the spine, the validity of any external spinal posture measure cannot be established. This paper reports on a study which tests the validity of photographs to measure adolescent sitting posture.

No abstract

This critical appraisal tool will aid both the health care practitioner to critically appraise the relevant literature and researchers to improve the quality of reporting of the validity and reliability of objective clinical tools.

Objective: To facilitate knowledge synthesis and implementation of evidence supporting early physical activity and mobilization of adult patients in the intensive care unit and its translation into practice, we developed an evidence-based clinical management algorithm. Methods: Twenty-eight draft algorithm statements extracted from the extant literature by the primary research team were verified and rated by scientist clinicians (n ¼ 7) in an electronic three round Delphi process. Algorithm statements which reached a priori defined consensus -semi-interquartile range <0.5 -were collated into the algorithm. Results: The draft algorithm statements were edited and six additional statements were formulated. The 34 statements related to assessment and treatment were grouped into three categories. Category A included statements for unconscious critically ill patients; Category B included statements for stable and cooperative critically ill patients, and Category C included statements related to stable patients with prolonged critical illness. While panellists reached consensus on the ratings of 94% (32/34) of the algorithm statements, only 50% (17/34) of the statements were rated essential. Conclusion:The evidence-based clinical management algorithm developed through an established Delphi process of consensus by an international inter-professional panel provides the clinician with a synthesis of current evidence and clinical expert opinion. This framework can be used to facilitate clinical decision making within the context of a given patient. The next step is to determine the clinical utility of this working algorithm.