1 / 15

Making recommendations: Practical Considerations

Making recommendations: Practical Considerations. Nov 15 2006 HHT Guidelines, Kingbridge Valerie Palda, MD, MSc. Process so far …. Some evidence based recommendations Some consensus Evidence-based recommendations will be discussed in detail at small group discussions

dea
Download Presentation

Making recommendations: Practical Considerations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Making recommendations:Practical Considerations Nov 15 2006 HHT Guidelines, Kingbridge Valerie Palda, MD, MSc

  2. Process so far… • Some evidence based recommendations • Some consensus • Evidence-based recommendations will be discussed in detail at small group discussions • All recommendations will be presented to and voted on by large group session • Recommendations with substantial disagreement will be discussed further

  3. Recommendations • Reflect the evidence • Consider values • Are clearly worded

  4. Reflect the evidence • For each statement • What is the level of evidence? • CTF classification • Is recommendation consistent with the evidence? • e.g. Evidence suggests test is not sensitive, but recommendation is made in favour of test

  5. Study designs and how they correspond to levels of evidence I At least one well-designed RCT II-1 Well-designed controlled trials without randomization II-2 Well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one centre or research group II-3 Comparisons between times or places with or without the intervention: dramatic results from uncontrolled studies could be included here IIIOpinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience; descriptive studies or reports of expert committees

  6. Reflect the evidence • For each statement • What is the level of evidence? • CTF classification • Is recommendation consistent with the evidence? • e.g. Evidence suggests test is not sensitive, but recommendation is made in favour of test WHY MIGHT THIS BE A VALID RECOMMENDATION?

  7. Consider values • Very important when making consensus recommendations • What are “values”? • sometimes called “preferences” if asking patient, “values” if research or guideline developer • Usually apply to outcomes e.g. HRT

  8. Other values • Cost • Feasibility

  9. How values might affect recommendations • Which is more important: • stroke or bleed? (depends on whom you ask) • preventing a potential disease outcome in an asymptomatic person, or not risking a procedural complication? • recommending a test that’s available and getting it done, or recommending the unavailable test for which there is the best evidence?

  10. Numbers – are NOT values, but affect recommendations • Baseline risks of outcomes • Benefit of treatment • Harms of treatment • How certain is the point estimate of all of these? • Size of studies • Quality of studies

  11. In the absence of published evidence… • recommendation developers bring their own values and numbers to the table • A sense of how often that patient bleeds • An idea of the complication rate of the procedure (also dependent on most recent) • Their own view of how bad a bleed can be • This may be different from their neighbour at the table, and lead to disagreement about the recommendation

  12. When making a recommendation: • Explicitly address in the group: • Level of evidence • Values at stake • Baseline risks, benefits and harms of treatment • Precision of those estimates (how sure are we?) • Other factors: e.g. availability

  13. When there is a disagreement: • Try to identify which component is the cause • Establish consensus. If cannot, may not be able to make a recommendation at this time

  14. Group leaders will note • Precise wording of the recommendation • Main points of discussion • Important clinical considerations (these often stem from numbers, values and costs) • Table 2 in the ATS “GRADE” paper

  15. Writing the recommendation: Be clear: Active tense –“The expert panel recommends the clinician do THIS…” Include the outcome –“to reduce THIS OUTCOME…” Include the level of evidence- “…Level II” Make a strength of recommendation “… weak recommendation”

More Related