Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 15, Article number: 57 (2015) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

A major challenge in updating clinical guidelines is to efficiently identify new, relevant evidence. We evaluated the efficiency and feasibility of two new approaches: the development of restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries for MEDLINE and the use of the PLUS (McMaster Premium Literature Service) database.

Methods

We evaluated a random sample of recommendations from a national guideline development program and identified the references that would potentially trigger an update (key references) using an exhaustive approach.

We designed restrictive search strategies using the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive search strategies and applying broad and narrow filters. We developed PLUS search strategies, matching Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) terms with guideline topics. We compared the number of key references retrieved by these approaches with those retrieved by the exhaustive approach.

Results

The restrictive approach retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (12,486 versus 39,136), and identified 89.9 % (62/69) of key references and 88 % (22/25) of recommendation updates. The use of PLUS retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (4,486 versus 39,136) and identified substantially fewer key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and fewer recommendation updates (10/25, 40 %).

Conclusions

The proposed restrictive approach is a highly efficient and feasible method to identify new evidence that triggers a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database proved to be a suboptimal approach and suggests the need for topic-specific tailoring.

Peer Review reports

Background

Clinical guidelines, like systematic reviews and other evidence summaries, require periodic reassessment of research evidence to remain valid [1–4]. Current guidance usually recommends revision and update within two to three years of their publication [5, 6]. New evidence to update clinical guidelines is generally identified using the original exhaustive search strategies [7].

A major challenge for guideline developers is to efficiently screen for new, relevant evidence that justifies a clinical guideline update. Unfortunately, little empirical work has been conducted to date to test the effectiveness and efficiency of searching processes [7]. More than a decade ago, Shekelle et al. developed a strategy based on retrieving reviews, editorials, and commentaries in high impact general journals and specialised journals, complemented with a survey by clinical experts [8]. Gartlehner et al. compared a modified version of this strategy versus an exhaustive search strategy [9]. The results so far have shown that restrictive approaches are promising, but more information is needed about the timing and type of search [7].

Similarly, researchers are testing alternative search strategies to update systematic reviews [10–13]. Haynes et al. developed the McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS) database, from the McMaster Health Knowledge Refinery [14, 15]. PLUS contains a searchable subset of pre-appraised primary studies and systematic reviews from more than 120 journals and it can identify key articles needed to update systematic reviews [14, 15]. Clinical Queries search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE have also shown a high sensitivity to detect key articles [11].

We designed a study to evaluate the efficiency and feasibility of two approaches to identify the need to update clinical guidelines recommendations: 1) restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries search filters for MEDLINE and 2) the use of PLUS database.

Methods

Design

We conducted a descriptive study of search strategies to identify the references that update recommendations from clinical guidelines. We developed three search strategies to identify the need to update the recommendations: an exhaustive approach, a restrictive approach, and a PLUS approach.

The sample was obtained from a previous study and included a stratified random sample of recommendations from the Spanish National Health System Clinical Guidelines Program [1, 16]. The selection process involved two phases: 1) we stratified guidelines by topic and by year of publication; when multiple guidelines per strata were available, we randomly selected one; 2) we performed a stratified random sampling of recommendations by guideline topic and by turnover (number of pertinent references linked per recommendation in the updating process).

1) Exhaustive approach

Guideline methodologists with experience designing search strategies developed exhaustive literature search strategies for each clinical question: 1) based on the original searches; and 2) applying the filters of the original study. An example of the exhaustive search strategy is available in Additional file 1. We also contacted clinical experts to identify new studies. We obtained a reference database of clinical questions. We screened the references and assessed them qualitatively as: 1) Pertinent references: Randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews related to the topic of the clinical guideline; 2) Relevant references: pertinent references that could be used when considering an update to a recommendation, but that would not necessarily trigger a potential update; and 3) Key references: relevant references that would potentially trigger an update because of their impact on the population, the intervention, the comparison, the outcome, the quality of the evidence, the direction and/or the strength of the recommendation. Using the results of the reference screening we classified recommendations as: 1) need for updating: with one or more key references linked; or 2) still valid: without key references linked.

A more complete description of this approach is available in the previously published protocol and survival analysis results [1, 16].

2) Restrictive approach

Guideline methodologists, trained by researchers with experience designing search strategies, developed restrictive search strategies for each clinical question using the PubMed Clinical Queries search filters for the MEDLINE database. We considered clinical questions that had at least two PICO (population, intervention, comparator or outcome) components. We developed the restrictive search strategies considering the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive searches strategies. The search strategies were designed in four stages [Fig. 1]: 1) Development: we selected keywords from the clinical questions and identified Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words in titles; 2) Validation: we evaluated whether each search retrieved all the original references for its corresponding recommendation; 3) Refinement: If a search did not retrieve all the original references, we selected and searched less specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and/or text words in the title or abstract; and 4) Application of each of a broad and a narrow treatment Clinical Queries filter (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/clinical), and a systematic review filter [17]. We used the same date limits as with the exhaustive approach (from the complete year in which the original exhaustive searches was completed onwards). An example of a restrictive search strategy is available in Additional file 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Restrictive approach algorithm. Figure01_RestrictiveApproachAlgorithm. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation

Full size image

3) PLUS approach

An information specialist from the Health Information Research Unit developed a PLUS search strategy for each guideline topic. We matched Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) indexing terms in the PLUS database with clinical guideline topics. Both primary and review papers were included. To take into account the time delay associated with the critical appraisal process (CAP) the articles go through, we ran the PLUS searches strategies from the beginning of the year in which the original exhaustive searches were run, until approximately three months beyond the latest date of the exhaustive searches. An example of a PLUS search strategy is available in Additional file 1.

Outcome

Our primary outcome was the number of key references identified by each alternative approach.

Statistical methods

We performed a descriptive analysis of the data. We calculated absolute and relative frequencies or median and range, as appropriate.

Two investigators independently retrieved the key references (identified in the exhaustive approach) in each of the alternative approach results. We analysed the number of key references in: 1) the results of restrictive search strategies per clinical question; 2) restrictive search strategies results per clinical guideline (clustering all references identified by clinical question) [Fig. 2]; and 3) results of PLUS strategies per clinical guideline. We did not identify additional pertinent, relevant or key references from the alternative approaches. We did not develop restrictive search strategies for clinical questions with less than two of the four PICO components, prognosis or diagnostic clinical questions. In these instances we used the updated exhaustive search strategies.

Fig. 2
figure 2

References analysis. Figure02_ReferencesAnalysis. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation

Full size image

We identified the recommendations that needed an update (with one or more key references) retrieved by each alternative approach. We compared the recommendations identified with those that were not identified according to clinical guideline topic (cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental health or metabolic disease), strength of recommendation (A, B, C, D or good practice point [18]), clinical purpose (prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment or other), and turnover. Each recommendation was classified according to the number of linked pertinent references: none, ≤ median number (low turnover), or > median number (high turnover). We used Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate.

We recorded the number of hours spent on designing each approach and the number of researchers involved.

We accepted p values of less than 0.05 as significant in all calculations. We performed the analyses using SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).

Results

We included a cohort of four clinical guidelines from the Spanish National Health System Clinical Guidelines Programme, corresponding to 87 clinical questions and 249 recommendations [19–22]. After the random selection process, the final recommendation sample included 43 clinical questions and 113 recommendations.

Exhaustive approach results

This approach retrieved a total of 39,136 references from the four clinical guidelines included. From the recommendations sample, we identified a total of 69 key references and 25 recommendations that potentially needed an update [Table 1].

Table 1 Exhaustive approach results
Full size table

Restrictive approach results

We applied the restrictive approach to 88.5 % (77/87) clinical questions from the included clinical guidelines, corresponding to 85 % (96/113) of the recommendations from our recommendation sample. We excluded eight questions that did not present a minimum of two PICO components (population, intervention, comparator or outcome) and one diagnostic question.

The restrictive searches covered a mean of 4.6 years (range 3.9 – 5.1 years) from 2008–2009 to 2011 – 2012 [Table 2].

Table 2 Restrictive approach results
Full size table

For the clinical guidelines included, we retrieved a total of 40,021 references using the broad filter and 9,958 references using the narrow filter [Table 2]. We retrieved more key references when we clustered results of references per guideline rather than per question (40 [87 %] and 39 [84.8 %] compared with 26 [56.5 %] and 25 [54.3 %] using the broad and narrow filters, respectively) [Table 2, Additional file 2]. Similarly, clustered results of references per guideline identified a higher number of recommendations that were considered to potentially need an update (18 [90.0 %] and 17 [85 %] compared with 15 [75 %] and 14 [70 %] respectively [Table 2].

When we used exhaustive search strategies for the clinical questions not developed by the restrictive approach (narrow filter and clustering by all questions), we retrieved a total of 12,486 references, and we identified a total of 62 (89.9 %) key references and 22 (88.0 %) recommendations that potentially needed an update [Table 4].

The restrictive approach (narrow filter and clustering by all questions) failed to identify seven key references (15.2 %): four (57.1 %) references were systematic reviews and three references (42.9 %) were congress abstracts (not indexed in MEDLINE) [Fig. 3].

Fig. 3
figure 3

Key references not identified by restrictive approach. Figure03_RefNotIdentifiedRestrictive. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation

Full size image

The recommendations that potentially needed an update not identified by the restrictive approach were similar to those that were identified in terms of topic, strength of the recommendations, clinical purpose, and turnover [Additional file 3].

PLUS approach results

The PLUS searches covered a median of 5.0 years (range 4.1 – 5.3 years) from 2008–2009 to 2011 – 2012 [Table 3].

Table 3 PLUS approach results
Full size table

For the clinical guidelines included, we retrieved a total of 4,486 references (range 137 – 3,059) [Table 3]. For the recommendation sample, we retrieved 18 (26.1 %) key references; these references potentially update 10 (40 %) recommendations [Table 3, Additional file 2].

The PLUS approach failed to identify 51 key references (73.9 %); most (41 references, 80.4 %) were from journals not included in PLUS database [Fig. 4].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Key references not identified by PLUS approach. Figure04_RefNotIdentifiedPLUS. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation

Full size image

Recommendations with a high turnover were more likely to be identified by the PLUS approach. The remaining factors (clinical guideline topic, strength of the recommendations, and clinical purpose) were not significantly associated with the need to update [Additional file 3].

Resource use

Three guideline methodologists spent a total of 174 h in designing and running the restrictive search strategies [Table 4]. The PLUS search strategies were developed by an information specialist who designed and ran the searches in 28 h [Table 4].

Table. 4 Summary results by approach
Full size table

Discussion

We evaluated two search strategies to identify signals for updating recommendations and compared them to an exhaustive search strategy using a random sample of recommendations from a cohort of clinical guidelines from a national guideline development program.

The restrictive approach (using a narrow PubMed Clinical Queries filter, clustering results per clinical guideline and imputing exhaustive search results for clinical questions not developed) retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach, and identified most of the key references (62/69, 89.9 %) and recommendations updates (22/25, 88.0 %). We developed search strategies for each clinical question but obtained better results by considering the results across all questions included in a clinical guideline. The restrictive approach proved to be relatively simple to develop, not needing the expertise of information retrieval specialists. Over half of the very few missing key references with this approach were systematic reviews. Three references were missed due to a mistake in the design of restrictive searches, and one was missed by the filter used [17], reflecting the need to pay more attention to the design and quality check of search strategies. Additional searches for systematic reviews in specific databases, like Epistemonikos, could prove useful [www.epistemonikos.org/]).

Our results show that PLUS approach retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach but identified a substantially lower number of key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and potential updates (10/25, 40 %) than the restrictive approach. These results were similar independently of the searches being performed by a PLUS information specialist (using search strategies) or directly using the PLUS interface using topic synonyms (post-hoc analysis). This poor performance was mainly due to most of these key references (80.4 %) being from journals not included in PLUS database.

The PLUS approach performed differently across topics with major depression performing best (66.7 % of key references retrieved) and prostate cancer worst (14.3 %). This poor performance in the prostate cancer guideline is explained by the fact that the PLUS database does not include a large number of urology journals. This resource includes a limited number of journals with a stronger focus on a limited number of specialties and health topics. Given these findings and building on previous research in the systematic reviews and clinical guidelines fields, post-hoc we explored a potential approach of tailoring the PLUS approach by adding a limited number of journals for each specialty (e.g. those with a higher impact factor) [8, 9, 12, 13]. However, missing key references were published in a highly heterogeneous sample of journals, with only 3.4 % being in the first decile [Fig. 4].

The two search strategies we tested were far less time consuming than the exhaustive search strategy. The restrictive approach needs initial tailoring and takes each original guideline, question, search and references into account. In contrast, the PLUS approach could be potentially executed directly in its interface simply using topic synonyms from clinical guidelines.

Our results in the context of previous research

Only one previous study of clinical guidelines compared a different type of restrictive approach versus an exhaustive approach [9]. However, this study considered prevention topics as the unit of analysis rather than the individual recommendations. Furthermore, the authors restricted the search to MEDLINE, using publication types (review articles, editorials, guidelines and commentaries) and limiting the search to core and specialty clinical journals [9].

A recent evaluation of NICE clinical guidelines for interventional procedures also showed that updated recommendations that required a modification generally had a greater increase in their evidence base (number of patients included in observational studies published) than non-updated recommendations [23]. Our results are consistent with this finding, showing a higher efficiency of the PLUS approach in recommendations with a higher turnover.

There is indirect evidence about the performance of PLUS for clinical guidelines from a previous study that evaluated the updating of systematic reviews [11]. Only 13 out of 87 systematic reviews (14.9 %) included all the new studies in PLUS. In 39 (44.8 %) reviews there was no statistically significant difference between PLUS and non-PLUS new studies (ROR: 0.99; 95 % confidence interval: 0.87-1.14). Thirty-five updated reviews (40.2 %) had no new studies indexed in PLUS (although conclusions were seldom altered by addition of new studies) [11]. Despite these results in systematic reviews, the PLUS database did not perform similarly in the context of clinical guidelines. However, we did not routinely determine the change in effect sizes with key references, so we could not assess their quantitative relationship. Neither did we assess whether references identified in the PLUS database could have reliably signalled the need to update for topics that were in the journals that are included.

The same study by Hemens et al. confirmed the high sensitivity of Clinical Queries filters for MEDLINE and EMBASE in detecting randomized controlled trials [11]. This is consistent with our results showing that incorporating Clinical Queries filters (to identify randomized controlled trials) and Montori’s et al. filter (to identify systematic reviews) significantly reduces the citation screening burden [17].

Strengths and limitations

We used a rigorous and explicit methodology building on previous research in this area, improving its deficiencies, and implementing an innovative solution. We also used the exhaustive approach as a standard, improving the validity of the results and, hence, the strength of our inferences. We independently screened and extracted the data in pairs and included methodologists and panel members from the original guidelines as far as possible. Finally, we laid out a structured framework (e.g., outcome definitions) that could prove useful in the future for other researchers in the field.

Our study has some limitations. We did not assess all references retrieved by each alternative approach, so we were not able to evaluate whether other key references were identified by any of these approaches. Our sample is limited to recommendations from four guidelines topics. However, this potential limitation is mitigated because our sample covers broad areas such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental health and lifestyle and behavioural issues. Additionally, we based our exhaustive search strategies on searches specifically designed during the original guidelines development. A post-hoc analysis revealed several mistakes and inconsistencies in search strategies that could have been avoided through peer review process [24]. However, the validation of the accuracy of the original search strategies was beyond the scope of our study. We are unable to estimate how this issue could affect the recall of the exhaustive search strategies, although we think that these deficiencies are minor and that they do not alter our conclusions. We included only randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews and did not incorporate observational studies, diagnostic questions or evidence about values and preferences or resource use considerations. Finally, some authors had conflicts of interest due to their involvement in the PLUS database and Clinical Queries filter development. However, they did not participate in the identification of key references.

Conclusions

Our results have important implications both for the updating of guidelines and for future research in this field. The proposed method of developing restrictive search strategies, using PubMed Clinical Queries filters in the MEDLINE database, provides a feasible and efficient method for guideline developers to identify significant new studies that are likely to trigger a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database was a suboptimal approach that needs topic specific tailoring.

Our results highlight the need for additional methodological research in this field. For this future work, investigators are likely to find our framework helpful.

References

  1. Martínez García L, Sanabria AJ, García Alvarez E, Trujillo-Martín MM, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Kotzeva A, et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ. 2014;186(16):1211–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alderson LJ, Alderson P, Tan T. Median life span of a cohort of national institute for health and care excellence clinical guidelines was about 60 months. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):52–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Banzi R, Cinquini M, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Pecoraro V, Tagliabue L, et al. Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis. BMJ. 2011;343:d5856.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Vernooij RW, Sanabria AJ, Solà I, Alonso-Coello P, Martínez García L. Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks. Implement Sci. 2014;9:3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Becker M, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Partial updating of clinical practice guidelines often makes more sense than full updating: a systematic review on methods and the development of an updating procedure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):33–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martínez García L, Arévalo-Rodríguez I, Solà I, Haynes RB, Vandvik PO, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2012;7:109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, Morton SC, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, et al. Validity of the agency for healthcare research and quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA. 2001;286(12):1461–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gartlehner G, West SL, Lohr KN, Kahwati L, Johnson JG, Harris RP, et al. Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(5):399–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gartlehner G, West SL, Lohr KN, Kahwati L, Johnson JG, Harris RP, et al. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):755–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hemens BJ, Haynes RB. McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS) performed well for identifying new studies for updated cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(1):62–72. e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sagliocca L, De Masi S, Ferrigno L, Mele A, Traversa G. A pragmatic strategy for the review of clinical evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(4):689–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shekelle PG, Motala A, Johnsen B, Newberry SJ. Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2014;3:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, Walters L, Wilczynski N, Jedraszewski D, et al. Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA. 2006;295(15):1801–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Holland J, Haynes RB, McMaster PLUS, Team Health Information Research Unit. McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS): an evidence-based medicine information service delivered on the Web. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005;340:4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Martínez García L, Sanabria AJ, Araya I, Lawson J, Haynes RB, Rigau D, et al. Strategies to assess the validity of recommendations: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Guidelines by topic. Edinburgh (Scotland): Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network — Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2013. Available: www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/published/index.html (accessed 2014 Oct 1).

  19. Working Group on the Management of Major Depression in Adults. Clinical practice guideline on the management of major depression in adults, National plan for the SHN of the MHCA. Axencia de avaliación de tecnoloxías sanitarias de Galicia (avalia-t). Madrid: Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Spanish SHN: avalia-t No 2006/06; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Working Group of the Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood and Juvenile Obesity. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, coordinator; Clinical Practice Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood and Juvenile Obesity; CPGs: Quality Plan for the Spanish National Healthcare System of the Spanish Ministry for Health and Social Policy; Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment; 2009. Clinical Practice Guideline: CAHTA no. 2007/25

  21. Working group of the Clinical Practice Guideline on Prostate Cancer Treatment. Clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer treatment, National plan for the NHS of the MSC. Aragon institute of health sciences (I + CS). Madrid: Clinical Practice Guidelines in the NHS I + CS No 2006/02; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Development group of the stroke prevention Guideline. Quality plan for the national health system of the ministry of health and consumer affairs; Catalan agency for health technology assessment and research. Madrid: Clinical Practice Guideline: AATRM Number 2006/15; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lyratzopoulos G, Barnes S, Stegenga H, Peden S, Campbell B. Updating clinical practice recommendations: is it worthwhile and when? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):944–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mercedes Cabañas (Técnicas Avanzadas de Investigación en Servicios de Salud [TAISS], Madrid, Spain) and Joanna Kelly (Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Glasgow, UK) for their support in developing and running the exhaustive literature searches, and Carolyn Newey for her help editing the manuscript.

Laura Martínez García is a doctoral candidate at the Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine Department, Universitat Aunònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Data sharing

The dataset is available from the corresponding author at laura.martinez.garcia@cochrane.es.

Funding

This project is funded by research grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (FIS PI10/00346 to Pablo Alonso-Coello) and from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (R. Brian Haynes). Laura Martínez García and Andrea Juliana Sanabria are funded by Río Hortega research contracts from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CM11/00035 and CM12/00168 respectively). Pablo Alonso-Coello is funded by a Miguel Servet research contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CP09/00137).

Members of the updating guidelines working group

Martínez García L; Sanabria AJ; Araya I; Lawson J; Solà I; Vernooij RWM; López D; García Álvarez E; Trujillo-Martín MM; Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I; Kotzeva A; Rigau D; Louro-González A; Barajas L; Díaz del Campo P; Estrada MD; Gracia J; Salcedo-Fernandez F; Haynes RB; Alonso-Coello P; Álvarez Ariza M; Argente Oliver J; Armario García P; Arrieta Antón E; Balaguer Santamaría A; Borque Fernando A; Buñuel Álvarez JC; Cervera Álvarez A; De Las Heras Liñero ME; Dopico L; Eddy Ives LS; Escó Barón R; Ferreira González I; Ferrer F; Gil Sanz MJ; Lago Deibe FI; Martí Canales JC; Martínez Rubio A; Martos Moreno GA; Mejuto Marti T; Morales Ortiz A; Rioja Sanz LA; Rioja Zuazu J; Rodríguez González A; Rodríguez-Arias Palomo JL; Sáenz Cusí A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

    L. Martínez García, AJ. Sanabria, I. Solà, RWM. Vernooij, D. Rigau, L. Barajas-Nava & P. Alonso-Coello

  2. Evidence Based Dentistry Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    I. Araya

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    J. Lawson & RB. Haynes

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Sub Secretariat of Public Health, Ministry of Health, Santiago, Chile

    D. López

  5. NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Ayr, UK

    E. García Álvarez

  6. Fundación Canaria de Investigación y Salud (FUNCIS), Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Tenerife, Spain

    MM. Trujillo-Martín

  7. Osteba, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment, Vitoria, Spain

    I. Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta

  8. Agency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS), Barcelona, Spain

    A. Kotzeva & MD. Estrada

  9. CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain

    A. Kotzeva, MD. Estrada & P. Alonso-Coello

  10. Centro de Saúde de Cambre, Xerencia de Xestión Integrada de A Coruña SERGAS, A Coruña, Spain

    A. Louro-González

  11. Health Technology Assessment Unit (UETS), Subdirección General de Tecnología e Innovación Sanitaria, Consejería de Sanidad, Madrid, Spain

    P. Díaz del Campo

  12. National Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the NHS, Madrid, Spain

    J. Gracia

  13. GuíaSalud-Aragon Institute of Health Sciences, Zaragoza, Spain

    F. Salcedo-Fernandez

Authors
  1. L. Martínez García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. AJ. Sanabria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Araya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Lawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. Solà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. RWM. Vernooij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. García Álvarez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. MM. Trujillo-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. I. Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. A. Kotzeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. D. Rigau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. A. Louro-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. L. Barajas-Nava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. P. Díaz del Campo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. MD. Estrada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. J. Gracia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. F. Salcedo-Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. RB. Haynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. P. Alonso-Coello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Updating Guidelines Working Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Martínez García.

Additional information

Competing interests

Laura Martínez García, Andrea Juliana Sanabria, David Rigau, Leticia Barajas-Nava, Ivan Solà and Pablo Alonso-Coello have received research grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (FIS PI10/00346). R. Brian Haynes and Jennifer Lawson have received research grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. R. Brian Haynes and Jennifer Lawson have been involved in developing the McMaster PLUS Project and RBH originated the development of Clinical Queries, so did not participate in identifying key references or potential update recommendations. No other competing interests were declared.

Authors’ contributions

LMG, AJS, IA, PAC, DR and IS conceived the idea of the study. IA, JL, IS, RWMV and DL designed and/or ran searches strategies. EGA, MMTM, IEI, AK, DR, ALG, LBN, PDC and MDE screened the references. LMG and AJS performed the statistical analysis. LMG and PAC drafted the manuscript. All of the authors revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version submitted for publication.

Additional files

Additional file 1:

Search strategies examples. We reported an example of exhaustive strategy, restrictive strategy, PLUS strategy. (PDF 82 kb)

Additional file 2:

Key references by approach. We reported key references by strategy, according to their clinical guidelines and linked to recommendation. (PDF 62 kb)

Additional file 3:

Additional tables. We reported complementary results (PDF 40 kb)

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martínez García, L., Sanabria, A., Araya, I. et al. Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol 15, 57 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0058-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0058-2

Keywords

Comments

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

Contact us