32,193 research outputs found
Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes
No full textThere is now extensive evidence on the optimal management of diabetes, offering the opportunity of improving the immediate and long-term quality of life of those with diabetes. Unfortunately such optimal management is not reaching many, perhaps the majority, of the people who could benefi t. Reasons include the size and complexity of the evidencebase, and the complexity of diabetes care itself. One result is a lack of proven cost-effective resources for diabetes care. Another result is diversity of standards of clinical practice. Guidelines are one part of a process which seeks to address those problems. Many guidelines have appeared internationally, nationally, and more locally in recent years, but most of these have not used the rigorous new guideline methodologies for identifi cation and analysis of the evidence. Many countries around the world do not have the resources, either in expertise or fi nancially, that are needed to develop diabetes guidelines. Also such a repetitive approach would be enormously ineffi cient and costly. Published national guidelines come from relatively resource-rich countries, and may be of limited practical use in less well resourced countries. In 2005 the fi rst IDF Global Guideline for type 2 diabetes was developed. This presented a unique challenge as we tried to develop a guideline that is sensitive to resource and costeffectiveness issues. Many national guidelines address one group of people with diabetes in the context of one healthcare system, with one level of national and health-care resources. This is not true in the global context where, although every health-care system seems to be short of resources, the funding and expertise available for health-care vary widely between countries and even between localities. Despite the challenges, we feel that we found an approach which is at least partially successful in addressing this issue which we termed ‘Levels of care’ (see next page). This guideline represents an update of the fi rst guideline and extends the evidence base by including new studies and treatments which have emerged since the original guideline was produced in 2005. Funding is essential to an activity of this kind. IDF is grateful to a diversity of commercial partners for provision of unrestricted educational grants.Fil: Aschner, Pablo. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Beck Nielsen, Henning. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Bennet, Peter. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Boulton, Andrew. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Colagiuri, Ruth. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Colagiuri, Stephen. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Franz, Marion. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Gadsby, Roger. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Gagliardino, Juan Jose. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnológico La Plata. Centro de Endocrinologia Experimental y Aplicada (i); Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata; Argentina. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Home, Philip. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: McGill, Marg. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Manley, Susan. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Marshall, Sally. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Mbanya, Jean Claude. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Neil, Andrew. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Ramachandran, Ambady. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Ramaiya, Kaushik. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Roglic, Gojka. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Schaper, Nicolaas. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Siminerio, Linda. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Sinclair, Alan. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Snoek, Frank. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Van Crombrugge, Paul. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Vespasiani, Giacomo. International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; BélgicaFil: Viswanathan, Vijay . International Diabetes Federation Guideline Development Group; Bélgic
Guideline summary: assessment, diagnosis, care and support for people with dementia and their carers [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network SIGN Guideline 168]
No full textThe Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) have recently published their guideline SIGN168 on ‘Assessment, Diagnosis, Care, and Support for People with Dementia and their Carers’. The guideline makes evidence-based recommendations for best practice in the assessment, care and support of adults living with dementia. Topics featured in this guideline are limited to those prioritised by stakeholders, especially people with lived and living experience, and those not well covered under pre-existing guidance. We summarise the guideline recommendations related to identification and diagnosis of dementia, investigative procedures, postdiagnostic support living with dementia, including non-pharmacological approaches for distressed behaviours, using technology to support people with dementia, grief and dementia and changing needs of people with dementia. The guideline content is summarised as officially published, with additional commentary in the final section
ESHRE guideline: endometriosis
No full textSTUDY QUESTION: How should endometriosis be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: The current guideline provides 109 recommendations on diagnosis, treatments for pain and infertility, management of disease recurrence, asymptomatic or extrapelvic disease, endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women, prevention and the association with cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometriosis is a chronic condition with a plethora of presentations in terms of not only the occurrence of lesions, but also the presence of signs and symptoms. The most important symptoms include pain and infertility. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 1 December 2020 and written in English were included in the literature review. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within specialist subgroups and then presented to the core guideline development group (GDG) until consensus was reached. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: This guideline aims to help clinicians to apply best care for women with endometriosis. Although studies mostly focus on women of reproductive age, the guideline also addresses endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women. The guideline outlines the diagnostic process for endometriosis, which challenges laparoscopy and histology as gold standard diagnostic tests. The options for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms include analgesics, medical treatments and surgery. Non-pharmacological treatments are also discussed. For management of endometriosis-associated infertility, surgical treatment and/or medically assisted reproduction are feasible. While most of the more recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, there are five topics in which significant changes to recommendations were required and changes in clinical practice are to be expected. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guideline describes different management options but, based on existing evidence, no firm recommendations could be formulated on the most appropriate treatments. Also, for specific clinical issues, such as asymptomatic endometriosis or extrapelvic endometriosis, the evidence is too scarce to make evidence-based recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in endometriosis care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. C.M.B. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare and the European Commission; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with ObsEva (Data Safety Monitoring Group) and Myovant (Scientific Advisory Group). A.B. reports grants from FEMaLE executive board member and European Commission Horizon 2020 grant; consulting fees from Ethicon Endo Surgery, Medtronic; honoraria for lectures from Ethicon; and support for meeting attendance from Gedeon Richter; A.H. reports grants from MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring; Consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics, Nordic Pharma, Chugai and Benevolent Al Bio Limited all paid to the institution; a pending patent on Serum endometriosis biomarker; he is also Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials. O.H. reports consulting fees and speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Bayer AG; support for attending meetings from Gedeon-Richter, and leadership roles at the Finnish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Nordic federation of the societies of obstetrics and gynecology. L.K. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; support for attending meetings from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; he also has a leadership role in the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology (DGGEF). M.K. reports grants from French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM), Australian Ministry of Health, Medical Research Future Fund and French National Cancer Institute; support for meeting attendance from European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Congress on Endometriosis (EEC) and ESHRE; She is an advisory Board Member, FEMaLe Project (Finding Endometriosis Using Machine Learning), Scientific Committee Chair for the French Foundation for Research on Endometriosis and Scientific Committee Chair for the ComPaRe-Endometriosis cohort. A.N. reports grants from Merck SA and Ferring; speaker fees from Merck SA and Ferring; support for meeting attendance from Merck SA; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; she also is a board member of medical advisory board, Endometriosis Society, the Netherlands (patients advocacy group) and an executive board member of the World Endometriosis Society. E.S. reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, Rosetrees Trust, Barts and the London Charity; Royalties from De Gruyter (book editor); consulting fees from Hologic; speakers fees from Hologic, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Intuitive, Olympus and Karl Storz; Participation in the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); he is also Ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society. C.T. reports grants from Merck SA; Consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; speaker fees from Merck SA, all paid to the institution; and support for meeting attendance from Ferring, Gedeon Richter and Merck SA. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).sponsorship: Chief Scientist Office|TCS/18/43status: Publishe
The National Italian Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of children with pediatric ataxias
No full textBackground: Ataxia is a rare neurological condition causing a deficit in the coordination of motor activities, preventing the fluidity of movements. Children with ataxia may show several different ataxic signs, along with difficulties in walking autonomously and ataxic gait often associated with trunk instability. Ataxic signs can be either acute or chronic, and in either case, the diagnosis can be extremely complex. Symptoms and their etiology are often widely heterogeneous, even within the same condition. Methods: The guideline was developed based on the methodology defined by the Methodological Handbook of the Italian National Guideline System (SNLG) and was reported following the AGREE-II checklist. The SNLG methodology required the adoption of the GRADE approach for the whole development process. To facilitate the implementation of the contents and recommendations from the guideline, two care pathways were developed based on the NICE and the European Pathway Association (EPA) models. Results: The guideline included 28 clinical questions, 4 on the identification and management of acute ataxias, and 24 on the diagnosis and management of chronic ataxias. The document included 44 recommendations, 37 clinical recommendations, and 7 recommendations for research. Conclusion: The working group, despite the lack and methodological limitations of the evidence, deemed as essential to provide indications and recommendations, in particular in some clinically relevant areas. The care pathway was produced as a tool to facilitate the implementation of the contents and recommendations. The interactive version of the pathway is available on the SNLG website along with a leaflet dedicated to families and caregivers
ESHRE guideline: endometriosis
No full textStudy question: How should endometriosis be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature? Summary Answer: The current guideline provides 109 recommendations on diagnosis, treatments for pain and infertility, management of disease recurrence, asymptomatic or extrapelvic disease, endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women, prevention and the association with cancer. What is known already: Endometriosis is a chronic condition with a plethora of presentations in terms of not only the occurrence of lesions, but also the presence of signs and symptoms. The most important symptoms include pain and infertility. Study design, size, duration: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 1 December 2020 and written in English were included in the literature review. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within specialist subgroups and then presented to the core guideline development group (GDG) until consensus was reached. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. Main Results and the role of chance: This guideline aims to help clinicians to apply best care for women with endometriosis. Although studies mostly focus on women of reproductive age, the guideline also addresses endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women. The guideline outlines the diagnostic process for endometriosis, which challenges laparoscopy and histology as gold standard diagnostic tests. The options for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms include analgesics, medical treatments and surgery. Non-pharmacological treatments are also discussed. For management of endometriosis-associated infertility, surgical treatment and/or medically assisted reproduction are feasible. While most of the more recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, there are five topics in which significant changes to recommendations were required and changes in clinical practice are to be expected. Limitations, reasons for caution: The guideline describes different management options but, based on existing evidence, no firm recommendations could be formulated on the most appropriate treatments. Also, for specific clinical issues, such as asymptomatic endometriosis or extrapelvic endometriosis, the evidence is too scarce to make evidence-based recommendations. Wider Implications of the findings: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in endometriosis care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in endometriosis. Study funding/competing interest(S): The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. C.M.B. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare and the European Commission; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with ObsEva (Data Safety Monitoring Group) and Myovant (Scientific Advisory Group). A.B. reports grants from FEMaLE executive board member and European Commission Horizon 2020 grant; consulting fees from Ethicon Endo Surgery, Medtronic; honoraria for lectures from Ethicon; and support for meeting attendance from Gedeon Richter; A.H. reports grants from MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring; Consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics, Nordic Pharma, Chugai and Benevolent Al Bio Limited all paid to the institution; a pending patent on Serum endometriosis biomarker; he is also Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials. O.H. reports consulting fees and speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Bayer AG; support for attending meetings from Gedeon-Richter, and leadership roles at the Finnish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Nordic federation of the societies of obstetrics and gynecology. L.K. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; support for attending meetings from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; he also has a leadership role in the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology (DGGEF). M.K. reports grants from French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM), Australian Ministry of Health, Medical Research Future Fund and French National Cancer Institute; support for meeting attendance from European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Congress on Endometriosis (EEC) and ESHRE; She is an advisory Board Member, FEMaLe Project (Finding Endometriosis Using Machine Learning), Scientific Committee Chair for the French Foundation for Research on Endometriosis and Scientific Committee Chair for the ComPaRe-Endometriosis cohort. A.N. reports grants from Merck SA and Ferring; speaker fees from Merck SA and Ferring; support for meeting attendance from Merck SA; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; she also is a board member of medical advisory board, Endometriosis Society, the Netherlands (patients advocacy group) and an executive board member of the World Endometriosis Society. E.S. reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, Rosetrees Trust, Barts and the London Charity; Royalties from De Gruyter (book editor); consulting fees from Hologic; speakers fees from Hologic, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Intuitive, Olympus and Karl Storz; Participation in the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); he is also Ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society. C.T. reports grants from Merck SA; Consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; speaker fees from Merck SA, all paid to the institution; and support for meeting attendance from Ferring, Gedeon Richter and Merck SA. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Disclaimer: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose
ESHRE guideline : number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI
No full textSTUDY QUESTION: Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians’ decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient’s case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field.Peer reviewe
The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure
No full textBackground: Evidence-based guidelines have the potential to improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources-especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development-the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF).
Methods: A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline.
Results: Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 un-rateable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 were based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) - the majority was congruent. Incongruity was found where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer.
Conclusion: The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines
Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol for a study of guideline development groups
No full textBackground: Health care practice based on research evidence requires that evidence is synthesised, and that recommendations based on this evidence are implemented. It also requires an intermediate step: translating synthesised evidence into practice recommendations. There is considerable literature on evidence synthesis and implementation, but little on how guideline development groups (GDGs) produce recommendations. This is a complex process, with many influences on communication and decision-making, e. g., the quality of evidence, methods of presentation, practical/resource constraints, individual values, professional and scientific interests, social and psychological processes. To make this process more transparent and potentially effective, we need to understand these influences. Psychological theories of decision-making and social influence provide a framework for this understanding.Objectives: This study aims to investigate the processes by which GDGs formulate recommendations, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence. The findings will potentially inform the further evolution of GDG methods, such as choice of members and procedures for presenting evidence, conducting discussion and formulating recommendations.Methods: Longitudinal observation of the meetings of three National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) GDGs, one from each of acute, mental health and public health, will be tape recorded and transcribed. Interviews with a sample of GDG members at the beginning, middle, and end of the GDG's work will be recorded and transcribed. Site documents including relevant e-mail interchanges, GDG meeting minutes, and stakeholders' responses to the drafts of the recommendations will be collected. Data will be selected for analysis if they refer to either evidence or recommendations; the focus is on "hot spots", e. g., dilemmas, conflicts, and uncertainty. Data will be analysed thematically and by content analysis, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence
Guideline on managing thumb ulnar collateral ligament injuries: the British Society of Surgery for the Hand Evidence for Surgical Treatment (BEST) findings and recommendations
No full textThe development of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) guideline was undertaken in accordance with the British Society for Surgery of the Hand Evidence for Surgical Treatment (BEST) Process Manual, which has been accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK. This review article serves as a summary of the systematic reviews and the final guideline. The group included two patients, a radiologist, a commissioner, an emergency medicine doctor, hand therapists and hand surgeons. The group’s recommendations are that patients with acute UCL injuries should be assessed with a history, clinical examination and radiographs. Patients without significant joint laxity can be treated non-surgically. Patients with significant joint laxity on clinical examination may be treated with non-surgical joint immobilization or surgical repair and should reach a shared decision with their clinician about the definitive treatment within 2 weeks of presentation
- …
