Good or best practice statements: Proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance

Omar Dewidar, Tamara Lotfi, Miranda W. Langendam, Elena Parmelli, Zuleika Saz Parkinson, Karla Solo, Derek K. Chu, Joseph L. Mathew, Elie A. Akl, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Reem A. Mustafa, Lorenzo Moja, Alfonso Iorio, Yuan Chi, Carlos Canelo-Aybar, Tamara Kredo, Justine Karpusheff, Alexis F. Turgeon, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Wojtek WierciochAnnette Gerritsen, Miloslav Klugar, María Ximena Rojas, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Andrea Welch, Kevin Pottie, Zachary Munn, Robby Nieuwlaat, Nathan Ford, Adrienne Stevens, Joanne Khabsa, Zil Nasir, Grigorios Leontiadis, Joerg Meerpohl, Thomas Piggott, Amir Qaseem, Micayla Matthews, Holger J. Schünemann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate. Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS. Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberbmjebm-2022-111962
Pages (from-to)189-196
Number of pages8
JournalBMJ evidence-based medicine
Volume28
Issue number3
Early online date2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2023

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • Evidence-Based Practice

Cite this