TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the process and outcome of the development of practice guidelines and recommendations
T2 - PANELVIEW instrument development
AU - PANELVIEW Working Group
AU - Wiercioch, Wojtek
AU - Akl, Elie A.
AU - Santesso, Nancy
AU - Zhang, Yuan
AU - Morgan, Rebecca L.
AU - Yepes-Nunez, Juan José
AU - Kowalski, Sérgio
AU - Baldeh, Tejan
AU - Mustafa, Reem A.
AU - Laisaar, Kaja Triin
AU - Raid, Ulla
AU - Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Itziarp
AU - Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
AU - Ventresca, Matthew
AU - Neumann, Ignacio
AU - Falavigna, Maicon
AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
AU - Morgano, Gian Paolo
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - McConnell, Meghan
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
AU - Falck-Ytter, Yngve
AU - Florez, Iván D.
AU - Qaseem, Amir
AU - Rosenfeld, Richard M.
AU - Robbins, Craig W.
AU - Thornton, Judith
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors.
PY - 2020/10/5
Y1 - 2020/10/5
N2 - BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations may be affected by flaws in the process, inappropriate panel member selection or conduct, conflicts of interest and other factors. To our knowledge, no validated tool exists to evaluate guideline development from the perspective of those directly involved in the process. Our objective was to develop and validate a universal tool, the PANELVIEW instrument, to assess guideline processes, methods and outcomes from the perspective of the participating guideline panellists and group members. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and surveys of guideline groups (identified through contacting international organizations and convenience sampling of working panels) to inform item generation. Subsequent groups of guideline methodologists and panellists reviewed items for face validity and missing items. We used surveys, interviews and expert review for item reduction and phrasing. For reliability assessment and feedback, we tested the PANELVIEW tool in 8 international guideline groups. RESULTS: We surveyed 62 members from 13 guideline panels, contacted 19 organizations and reviewed 20 source documents to generate items. Fifty-three additional key informants provided feedback about phrasing of the items and response options. We reduced the number of items from 95 to 34 across domains that included administration, training, conflict of interest, group dynamics, chairing, evidence synthesis, formulating recommendations and publication. The tool takes about 10 minutes to complete and showed acceptable measurement properties. INTERPRETATION: The PANELVIEW instrument fills a gap by enabling guideline organizations to involve clinicians, patients and other participants in evaluating their guideline processes. The tool can inform quality improvement of existing or new guideline programs, focusing on insight into and transparency of the guideline development process, methods and outcomes.
AB - BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations may be affected by flaws in the process, inappropriate panel member selection or conduct, conflicts of interest and other factors. To our knowledge, no validated tool exists to evaluate guideline development from the perspective of those directly involved in the process. Our objective was to develop and validate a universal tool, the PANELVIEW instrument, to assess guideline processes, methods and outcomes from the perspective of the participating guideline panellists and group members. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and surveys of guideline groups (identified through contacting international organizations and convenience sampling of working panels) to inform item generation. Subsequent groups of guideline methodologists and panellists reviewed items for face validity and missing items. We used surveys, interviews and expert review for item reduction and phrasing. For reliability assessment and feedback, we tested the PANELVIEW tool in 8 international guideline groups. RESULTS: We surveyed 62 members from 13 guideline panels, contacted 19 organizations and reviewed 20 source documents to generate items. Fifty-three additional key informants provided feedback about phrasing of the items and response options. We reduced the number of items from 95 to 34 across domains that included administration, training, conflict of interest, group dynamics, chairing, evidence synthesis, formulating recommendations and publication. The tool takes about 10 minutes to complete and showed acceptable measurement properties. INTERPRETATION: The PANELVIEW instrument fills a gap by enabling guideline organizations to involve clinicians, patients and other participants in evaluating their guideline processes. The tool can inform quality improvement of existing or new guideline programs, focusing on insight into and transparency of the guideline development process, methods and outcomes.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85092311478
U2 - 10.1503/cmaj.200193
DO - 10.1503/cmaj.200193
M3 - Article
C2 - 33020121
SN - 0820-3946
VL - 192
SP - E1138-E1145
JO - CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal
JF - CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal
IS - 40
ER -