30.05.2013 Views

A5V4d

A5V4d

A5V4d

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!