• Clin. Infect. Dis. · Oct 2021

    Community-acquired Pneumonia Guideline Recommendations - Impact of a Consensus-based Process versus Systematic Reviews.

    • Kevin C Wilson, Noah C Schoenberg, David L Cohn, Kristina Crothers, Kevin P Fennelly, Joshua P Metlay, Jussi J Saukkonen, Charlie Strange, Grant Waterer, and Raed Dweik.
    • Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
    • Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021 Oct 5; 73 (7): e1467-e1475.

    BackgroundThe American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Community-acquired Pneumonia (CAP) guidelines were developed using systematic reviews to inform every recommendation, as suggested by the Institute of Medicine Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines. Recent studies suggest that an expert consensus-based approach, called the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process, can produce recommendations that are concordant with recommendations informed by systematic reviews.PurposeThe goal of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the CORE process had it been used to develop the ATS/IDSA CAP guidelines.MethodsExperts in CAP who were not on the guideline panel and had no knowledge of the guideline's systematic reviews or recommendations were recruited to participate in the CORE process, addressing the same questions asked by the guideline panel. Recommendations derived from the CORE process were compared to the guideline recommendations. Concordance of the course of action, strength of recommendation, and quality of evidence were determined.ResultsUsing a threshold of 70% of experts selecting the same course of action to make a recommendation, the CORE process yielded a recommendation for 20 of 31 (65%) questions. Among the 20 CORE-derived recommendations, 19 (95%) were concordant with the guideline recommendations (kappa agreement 0.88, 95% CI .64-1.00). There was less agreement among the strength of recommendations (58%) and quality of evidence (42%).ConclusionsIf the CORE process had been used, 11 systematic reviews would have been necessary rather than 31, with minimal impact on the recommended courses of action.© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.