A5V4d
A5V4d
A5V4d
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Guideline development methodology<br />
The GDG also identified areas where evidence to answer its review questions was lacking and used<br />
this information to formulate recommendations for future research.<br />
Towards the end of the guideline development process, formal consensus methods were used to<br />
consider all the clinical care recommendations and research recommendations that had been drafted.<br />
The GDG identified 10 ‘key priorities for implementation’ (key recommendations) and five high-priority<br />
research recommendations. The key priorities for implementation were those recommendations<br />
thought likely to have the greatest impact on clinical care and outcomes in the NHS as a whole; they<br />
were selected using a variant of the nominal group technique (see the NICE guidelines manual). The<br />
priority research recommendations were selected in a similar way.<br />
Stakeholder involvement<br />
Registered stakeholder organisations were invited to comment on the draft scope and the draft<br />
guideline. The GDG carefully considered and responded to all comments received from stakeholder<br />
organisations. The comments and responses were reviewed by NICE in accordance with the NICE<br />
guideline development process.<br />
3.2 Methodology for the 2007 guideline<br />
This section outlines the methodology used in the development of the 2007 guideline and applies only<br />
to those parts of the guideline that were developed in 2007.<br />
This guideline was commissioned by NICE and developed in accordance with the guideline<br />
development process outlined in the 2005 NICE Guidelines Manual. 17<br />
Literature search strategy<br />
Initial scoping searches were carried out to identify relevant guidelines (local, national, international)<br />
produced by other development groups. The reference lists in these guidelines were checked against<br />
subsequent searches to identify missing evidence.<br />
Systematic searches to answer the clinical questions formulated and agreed by the GDG were carried<br />
out using the following databases via the OVID platform: MEDLINE (1966 onwards), Embase (1980<br />
onwards), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 onwards) and PsycINFO<br />
(1967 onwards). The most recent search conducted for the three Cochrane databases (Cochrane<br />
Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database<br />
of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) was Quarter 3, 2006. Searches to identify economic studies were<br />
undertaken using the above databases and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS-EED).<br />
Relevant published evidence to inform the guideline development process and answer the clinical<br />
questions was identified by systematic search strategies. The clinical questions are shown in the<br />
relevant sections. Additionally, stakeholder organisations were invited to submit evidence for<br />
consideration by the GDG, provided it was relevant to the clinical questions and of equivalent or better<br />
quality than evidence identified by the search strategies. GDG members also contributed evidence<br />
under the same conditions.<br />
Search strategies combined relevant controlled vocabulary and natural language in an effort to<br />
balance sensitivity and specificity. Both generic and specially developed methodological search filters<br />
were used appropriately. Unless advised by the GDG, searches were not date specific.<br />
There was no systematic attempt to search grey literature (conferences, abstracts, theses and<br />
unpublished trials). Hand searching of journals not indexed on the databases was not undertaken.<br />
Ongoing trials were identified and the principal investigators asked to share their research proposals<br />
and outcomes, if available.<br />
Although search strategies were devised for children under the age of 5 years, evidence beyond this<br />
age group was considered when no other evidence was available for children under 5 years. Refer to<br />
the evidence tables outlining these studies on the accompanying CD-ROM.<br />
Searches were updated and re-run 6–8 weeks before the stakeholder consultation, thereby ensuring<br />
that the latest relevant published evidence was included in the database. Any evidence published<br />
35<br />
2013 Update