Anna Kotzeva

The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis

Background: Clinical guidelines should be updated to maintain their validity. Our aim was to estimate the length of time before recommendations become outdated. Methods: We used a retrospective cohort design and included recommendations from clinical guidelines developed in the Spanish National Health System clinical guideline program since 2008. We performed a descriptive analysis of references, recommendations and resources used, and a survival analysis of recommendations using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: We included 113 recommendations from 4 clinical guidelines with a median of 4 years since the most recent search (range 3.9–4.4 yr). We retrieved 39 136 references (range 3343–14 787) using an exhaustive literature search, 668 of which were related to the recommendations in our sample. We identified 69 (10.3%) key references, corresponding to 25 (22.1%) recommendations that required updating. Ninety-two percent (95% confidence interval 86.9–97.0) of the recommendations were valid 1 year after their development. This probability decreased at 2 (85.7%), 3 (81.3%) and 4 years (77.8%). Interpretation: Recommendations quickly become outdated, with 1 out of 5 recommendations being out of date after 3 years. Waiting more than 3 years to review a guideline is potentially too long.

Validation of the FRAX Predictive Model for Major Osteoporotic Fracture in a Historical Cohort of Spanish Women

FRAX is a fracture risk assessment tool to estimate the 10-yr probability of a major osteoporotic fracture or a hip fracture. The aim of the study was to assess the predictive ability of FRAX for major osteoporotic fracture in a cohort of Spanish women. The study was based on a retrospective cohort of women aged 40-90 yr. Patients were followed from their first bone densitometry to the first major osteoporotic fracture event (forearm, proximal humerus, clinical spine, or hip fracture) or for 10 yr whichever comes first. A total of 1231 women were included. Bone mineral density data and self-reported data on risk factors for fracture were obtained. The predictive ability of FRAX was assessed by analyzing calibration and discrimination, with the calculation of observed-to-expected (O/E) fracture ratios and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, respectively. A total of 222 women (18.1%) reported at least 1 fracture after the first assessment. The incidence of fracture was 14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10-17), 19 (95% CI: 15-23), 28 (95% CI: 21-36), and 67 (95% CI: 8-125) cases per 1000 woman-years in women aged <55, 55-64, 65-74, and ≥75 yr, respectively. The O/E ratio was 3.9 (95% CI: 3.4-4.5; p<0.0001). The area under the ROC curve was 61% (95% CI: 57-65%). FRAX underestimated the risk of major osteoporotic fracture in this cohort of Spanish women, particularly in those with a low risk of fracture according to the clinical factors used in the FRAX tool. Our findings highlight the need for validation studies of FRAX in Spain.

Factores de riesgo de fracturas por fragilidad en una cohorte de mujeres españolas

INTRODUCTION Fragility fractures are an important public health issue. The aim of this study was to analyze the association of the main osteoporotic risk factors related to fragility fracture in a cohort of women with an indication of bone densitometry (BD). METHODS A retrospective cohort was followed-up until a fragile fracture occurred, in a population of women aged 40 to 90 years with a first visit for BD between January 1992 and February 2008. We calculated the incidence rate of fracture per 1000 women-years of follow-up, and the hazard ratio (HR) of fragile fracture using a Cox regression model. RESULTS A total of 49,735 women were studied. The average age of participants was 57.8 years (SD: 8.5). Of these, 3631 women (7.1%) reported a new fragility fracture in post-baseline visits. Risk factors with higher adjusted HR were age ≥ 75 years compared with age < 55 years (HR: 3.8; 95% CI: 3.3-4.4) and having a BC result evaluated as osteoporosis compared to normal (HR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.8-2.2). A personal history of humerus, hip or vertebral fractures had an adjusted HR of 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1-1.3). CONCLUSIONS The main risk factors for fragility fracture were advanced age, BD result and a personal history of fracture, although 74% of fractures were detected with a bone mineral density classified as normal or osteopenia. Other relevant factors were rheumatoid arthritis or having received prolonged corticosteroid therapy.

Risk factors for fragility fractures in a cohort of Spanish women

INTRODUCTION Fragility fractures are an important public health issue. The aim of this study was to analyze the association of the main osteoporotic risk factors related to fragility fracture in a cohort of women with an indication of bone densitometry (BD). METHODS A retrospective cohort was followed-up until a fragile fracture occurred, in a population of women aged 40 to 90 years with a first visit for BD between January 1992 and February 2008. We calculated the incidence rate of fracture per 1000 women-years of follow-up, and the hazard ratio (HR) of fragile fracture using a Cox regression model. RESULTS A total of 49,735 women were studied. The average age of participants was 57.8 years (SD: 8.5). Of these, 3631 women (7.1%) reported a new fragility fracture in post-baseline visits. Risk factors with higher adjusted HR were age ≥ 75 years compared with age < 55 years (HR: 3.8; 95% CI: 3.3-4.4) and having a BC result evaluated as osteoporosis compared to normal (HR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.8-2.2). A personal history of humerus, hip or vertebral fractures had an adjusted HR of 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1-1.3). CONCLUSIONS The main risk factors for fragility fracture were advanced age, BD result and a personal history of fracture, although 74% of fractures were detected with a bone mineral density classified as normal or osteopenia. Other relevant factors were rheumatoid arthritis or having received prolonged corticosteroid therapy.

mHealth Assessment: Conceptualization of a Global Framework

Background The mass availability and use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies offers the potential for these technologies to support or substitute medical advice. However, it is worrisome that most assessment initiatives are still not able to successfully evaluate all aspects of mHealth solutions. As a result, multiple strategies to assess mHealth solutions are being proposed by medical regulatory bodies and similar organizations. Objective We aim to offer a collective description of a universally applicable description of mHealth assessment initiatives, given their current and, as we see it, potential impact. In doing so, we recommend a common foundation for the development or update of assessment initiatives by addressing the multistakeholder issues that mHealth technology adds to the traditional medical environment. Methods Organized by the Mobile World Capital Barcelona Foundation, we represent a workgroup consisting of patient associations, developers, and health authority representatives, including medical practitioners, within Europe. Contributions from each group’s diverse competencies has allowed us to create an overview of the complex yet similar approaches to mHealth evaluation that are being developed today, including common gaps in concepts and perspectives. In response, we summarize commonalities of existing initiatives and exemplify additional characteristics that we believe will strengthen and unify these efforts. Results As opposed to a universal standard or protocol in evaluating mHealth solutions, assessment frameworks should respect the needs and capacity of each medical system or country. Therefore, we expect that the medical system will specify the content, resources, and workflow of assessment protocols in order to ensure a sustainable plan for mHealth solutions within their respective countries. Conclusions A common framework for all mHealth initiatives around the world will be useful in order to assess whatever mHealth solution is desirable in different areas, adapting it to the specifics of each context, to bridge the gap between health authorities, patients, and mHealth developers. We aim to foster a more trusting and collaborative environment to safeguard the well-being of patients and citizens while encouraging innovation of technology and policy.

Strategies to assess the validity of recommendations: a study protocol.

BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) become quickly outdated and require a periodic reassessment of evidence research to maintain their validity. However, there is little research about this topic. Our project will provide evidence for some of the most pressing questions in this field: 1) what is the average time for recommendations to become out of date?; 2) what is the comparative performance of two restricted search strategies to evaluate the need to update recommendations?; and 3) what is the feasibility of a more regular monitoring and updating strategy compared to usual practice?. In this protocol we will focus on questions one and two.MethodsThe CPG Development Programme of the Spanish Ministry of Health developed 14 CPGs between 2008 and 2009. We will stratify guidelines by topic and by publication year, and include one CPG by strata.We will develop a strategy to assess the validity of CPG recommendations, which includes a baseline survey of clinical experts, an update of the original exhaustive literature searches, the identification of key references (reference that trigger a potential recommendation update), and the assessment of the potential changes in each recommendation.We will run two alternative search strategies to efficiently identify important new evidence: 1) PLUS search based in McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) database; and 2) a Restrictive Search (ReSe) based on the least number of MeSH terms and free text words needed to locate all the references of each original recommendation.We will perform a survival analysis of recommendations using the Kaplan-Meier method and we will use the log-rank test to analyse differences between survival curves according to the topic, the purpose, the strength of recommendations and the turnover. We will retrieve key references from the exhaustive search and evaluate their presence in the PLUS and ReSe search results.DiscussionOur project, using a highly structured and transparent methodology, will provide guidance of when recommendations are likely to be at risk of being out of date. We will also assess two novel restrictive search strategies which could reduce the workload without compromising rigour when CPGs developers check for the need of updating.

023 Feasibility and Efficiency of Strategies For Updating Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background Exhaustive search strategies (ESS) for updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations are laborious and expensive. Highly sensitive and specific alternative search strategies are necessary to improve the efficiency in recommendations updating. Objectives To compare alternative search strategies against ESS Methods We ran three different search strategies in a convenience sample of four CPGs from the CPGs National Programme in Spain: 1) Original ESS (gold standard); 2) Search strategy in the McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) database; and 3) Restrictive strategy with the least number of MeSH terms and text words from the original ESS. We retrieved the key references (which triggered an update) from the original ESS and evaluated their presence in the PLUS and restrictive strategies results. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy for the PLUS and restrictive strategies compared to the ESS. Results The overall number of references in the PLUS strategy was lower than in the ESS (39,133 versus 2,635). The PLUS strategy retrieved a range of 1.12% to 12.1% of the total number of references retrieved by the ESS per guideline. Discussion Our project assessed two novel restrictive search strategies for the updating of CPGs, which could reduce the workload while displaying similar results. Full final findings of this project will be presented at the GIN meeting. Implications for Guideline Developers/Users Our project has important implications for updating CPGs, informing on the feasibility and efficiency of two novel search strategies.