Cited by 34Clinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1–2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper

Open access
Akl, Elie A., Morgan, Rebecca L., Rooney, Andrew A., Beverly, Brandiese, Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal, Agarwal, Arnav, Alper, Brian S., Alva-Diaz, Carlos +29 more·2021·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. RESULTS: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. CONCLUSION: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.037

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brozek J, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Mustafa RA, Manja V, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: grade-adolopment. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;81:101e10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akl, E. A., Morgan, R. L., Rooney, A. A., Beverly, B., Katikireddi, S. V., Agarwal, A., Alper, B. S., Alva-Diaz, C., Amato, L., Ansari, M. T., Brozek, J., Chu, D. K., Dahm, P., Darzi, A. J., Falavigna, M., Gartlehner, G., Pardo-Hernandez, H., King, V., Klugarová, J., Langendam, M. W. M., Lockwood, C., Mammen, M., Mathioudakis, A. G., McCaul, M., Meerpohl, J. J., Minozzi, S., Mustafa, R. A., Nonino, F., Piggott, T., Qaseem, A., Riva, J., Rodin, R., Sekercioglu, N., Skoetz, N., Traversy, G., Thayer, K., & Schünemann, H.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University Medical Centre (CA)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
  • MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (GB)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • EBSCO Industries (United States) (US)
  • Regione Lazio (IT)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Hospital Moinhos de Vento (BR)
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
  • Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna (IT)
  • American College of Physicians (US)
  • Public Health Agency of Canada (CA)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
Corresponding author
Akl, Elie A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
129
Pages
1-11
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3091337614
Cited by
34
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre
  • BRC
  • NRS
  • Medical Research Council
  • Scottish Government
  • Chief Scientist Office
  • AllerGen
  • Canadian Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Foundation
  • CAAIF
  • NCE
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
GRADE, guideline development, feasibility assessment, guideline revision, conflicts of interest, transparency, multidisciplinary team
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Information Management, Consensus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review