Anna Selva

Las guías de práctica clínica proporcionan recomendaciones sobre los beneficios y desventajas de diferentes intervenciones disponibles en la asistencia sanitaria. Su adecuado desarrollo e implementación permitirían reducir la variabilidad en la práctica clínica, así como mejorar su calidad y su seguridad. El sistema GRADE es una herramienta que permite evaluar la calidad de la evidencia y graduar la fuerza de las recomendaciones en el contexto de desarrollo de guías de práctica clínica, revisiones sistemáticas o evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias. El objetivo de este artículo es describir las principales características del sistema GRADE a través de ejemplos relevantes en el contexto de la atención primaria. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) provide recommendations on the benefits and harms of different healthcare interventions. Proper CPG development and implementation can potentially reduce variability in clinical practice while improving its quality and safety. The GRADE system is used to assess the quality of evidence and to grade the strength of recommendations in the context of the development of CPGs, systematic reviews or health technology assessments. The aim of this article is to describe the main characteristics of the GRADE system through relevant examples in the context of primary care.

Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.

BACKGROUND: Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence. METHODS: We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR). RESULTS: We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50. CONCLUSIONS: This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.