Article type
Abstract
Background: To avoid reinventing the wheel published guidelines are often adapted to support guideline development in countries other than where they were developed.
Objectives: To evaluate the resource and decision- making impact of regrading the evidence when adapting guidelines.
Methods: The guideline topic of obesity was selected by the Maltese healthcare professionals; the guideline group of healthcare practitioners was convened. Questions on bariatric surgery and pharmacology were based on the NICE obesity guideline (CG189) ‘Obesity; identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in children, young people and adults.’ and group agreed to update the evidence base. A separate project is being undertaken to re-evaluate the grading of indirectness and examine specifically how this impacts on the quality rating of the evidence and the time it takes to do this.
Results: Initial results indicate that this is a lengthy process and it is unclear yet whether this has any further impact on the quality of the evidence from the original guideline and on the interpretation of the data and the decision making. The final results will consider this.
Conclusion: Where resources are limited it is important to make the best use of current available resources and avoid re-inventing the wheel, however, it may be that there are specific elements of guideline development that cannot be reliably transferred to different settings.
Objectives: To evaluate the resource and decision- making impact of regrading the evidence when adapting guidelines.
Methods: The guideline topic of obesity was selected by the Maltese healthcare professionals; the guideline group of healthcare practitioners was convened. Questions on bariatric surgery and pharmacology were based on the NICE obesity guideline (CG189) ‘Obesity; identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in children, young people and adults.’ and group agreed to update the evidence base. A separate project is being undertaken to re-evaluate the grading of indirectness and examine specifically how this impacts on the quality rating of the evidence and the time it takes to do this.
Results: Initial results indicate that this is a lengthy process and it is unclear yet whether this has any further impact on the quality of the evidence from the original guideline and on the interpretation of the data and the decision making. The final results will consider this.
Conclusion: Where resources are limited it is important to make the best use of current available resources and avoid re-inventing the wheel, however, it may be that there are specific elements of guideline development that cannot be reliably transferred to different settings.