- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Schünemann, Holger"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation(BMC, 2020-02-01) Petkovic, Jennifer; Riddle, Alison; Akl, Elie A.; Khabsa, Joanne; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Atwere, Pearl; Campbell, Pauline; Chalkidou, Kalipso; Chang, Stephanie M.; Crowe, Sally; Dans, Leonila; Jardali, Fadi El; Ghersi, Davina; Graham, Ian D.; Grant, Sean; Greer-Smith, Regina; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Hazlewood, Glen; Janet, Janet; Katikireddi, S. Vittal; Langlois, Etienne V.; Lyddiatt, Anne; Maxwell, Lara; Morley, Richard; Mustafa, Reem A.; Nonino, Francesco; Pardo, Jordi Pardo; Pollock, Alex; Kevin, Kevin; Riva, John; Schünemann, Holger; Simeon, Rosiane; Smith, Maureen; Stein, Airton T.; Synnot, Anneliese; Tufte, Janice; White, Howard; Welch, Vivian; Concannon, Thomas W.; Tugwell, Peter; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public HealthStakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.Item PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A systematic review(Wiley, 2022-05-11) Petkovic, Jennifer; Riddle, Alison; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Khabsa, Joanne; Akl, Elie A.; Welch, Vivian; Magwood, Olivia; Atwere, Pearl; Graham, Ian D.; Grant, Sean; John, Denny; Vittal Katikireddi, Srinivasa; Langlois, Etienne; Mustafa, Reem A.; Todhunter‐Brown, Alex; Schünemann, Holger; Smith, Maureen; Stein, Airton T.; Concannon, Tom; Tugwell, Peter; Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthThis is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.Item Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism(American Society of Hematology, 2021-04-27) Patel, Parth; Patel, Payal; Bhatt, Meha; Braun, Cody; Begum, Housne; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Khatib, Rasha; Martins, Carolina C.; Zhang, Yuan; Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Itziar; Varghese, Jamie; Alturkmani, Hani; Bahaj, Waled; Baig, Mariam; Kehar, Rohan; Mustafa, Ahmad; Ponnapureddy, Rakesh; Sethi, Anchal; Thomas, Merrill; Wooldridge, David; Lim, Wendy; Bates, Shannon M.; Lang, Eddy; Le Gal, Grégoire; Haramati, Linda B.; Kline, Jeffrey A.; Righini, Marc; Wiercioch, Wojtek; Schünemann, Holger; Mustafa, Reem A.; Emergency Medicine, School of MedicinePrompt evaluation and therapeutic intervention of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) are of paramount importance for improvement in outcomes. We systematically reviewed outcomes in patients with suspected PE, including mortality, incidence of recurrent PE, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and postthrombotic sequelae. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included 22 studies with 15 865 patients. Among patients who were diagnosed with PE and discharged with anticoagulation, 3-month follow-up revealed that all-cause mortality was 5.69% (91/1599; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.56-6.83), mortality from PE was 1.19% (19/1597; 95% CI, 0.66-1.72), recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 1.38% (22/1597; 95% CI: 0.81-1.95), and major bleeding occurred in 0.90% (2/221%; 95% CI, 0-2.15). In patients with a low pretest probability (PTP) and negative D-dimer, 3-month follow-up revealed mortality from PE was 0% (0/808) and incidence of VTE was 0.37% (4/1094; 95% CI: 0.007-0.72). In patients with intermediate PTP and negative D-dimer, 3-month follow-up revealed that mortality from PE was 0% (0/2747) and incidence of VTE was 0.46% (14/3015; 95% CI: 0.22-0.71). In patients with high PTP and negative computed tomography (CT) scan, 3-month follow-up revealed mortality from PE was 0% (0/651) and incidence of VTE was 0.84% (11/1302; 95% CI: 0.35-1.34). We further summarize outcomes evaluated by various diagnostic tests and diagnostic pathways (ie, D-dimer followed by CT scan).