The fundamental principle proposed for the development of joint clinical practice documents
| Organizations . | Writing committee composition . | Standards for initiating a systematic review . | Evidence review committee . | Evidence appraisal system . | Conflict of interest (COI) . | Recommendations . | Economic consideration . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AATS, EACTS, ESTS, and STS | A multidisciplinary team of 10-20 balanced members, including clinicians, various methodologic experts (such as statisticians, epidemiologists, and/or public health specialists), and, if needed, representatives from populations expected to benefit from the guideline. | The patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time (PICOT) framework | Experts in clinical content, an expert in systematic review, and an expert in searching for relevant evidence | The Risk Of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool for randomized trials, the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) in a meta-analysis, and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) frameworks | Individuals being considered for the writing committee should comprehensively declare interests and activities that may result in COI or the appearance of COI with development group activities through written disclosure before selection. The Chair or Co-Chairs should not have any relevant COI, and other members should either have no relevant COIs or those deemed manageable only. | Members with potential COI are excluded from related votes. A 75% provisional agreement of present members is required to advance a recommendation. The Delphi Method requires an 80% response rate and at least 75% agreement for approval of an individual recommendation. Voting continues based on anonymous feedback until a consensus is reached. | No economic evaluation for treatment interventions; recommendations for best practice care should be provided. |
| Organizations . | Writing committee composition . | Standards for initiating a systematic review . | Evidence review committee . | Evidence appraisal system . | Conflict of interest (COI) . | Recommendations . | Economic consideration . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AATS, EACTS, ESTS, and STS | A multidisciplinary team of 10-20 balanced members, including clinicians, various methodologic experts (such as statisticians, epidemiologists, and/or public health specialists), and, if needed, representatives from populations expected to benefit from the guideline. | The patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time (PICOT) framework | Experts in clinical content, an expert in systematic review, and an expert in searching for relevant evidence | The Risk Of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool for randomized trials, the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) in a meta-analysis, and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) frameworks | Individuals being considered for the writing committee should comprehensively declare interests and activities that may result in COI or the appearance of COI with development group activities through written disclosure before selection. The Chair or Co-Chairs should not have any relevant COI, and other members should either have no relevant COIs or those deemed manageable only. | Members with potential COI are excluded from related votes. A 75% provisional agreement of present members is required to advance a recommendation. The Delphi Method requires an 80% response rate and at least 75% agreement for approval of an individual recommendation. Voting continues based on anonymous feedback until a consensus is reached. | No economic evaluation for treatment interventions; recommendations for best practice care should be provided. |
AATS, American Association for Thoracic Surgery; EACTS, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery; ESTS, European Society of Thoracic Surgeons; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
The fundamental principle proposed for the development of joint clinical practice documents
| Organizations . | Writing committee composition . | Standards for initiating a systematic review . | Evidence review committee . | Evidence appraisal system . | Conflict of interest (COI) . | Recommendations . | Economic consideration . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AATS, EACTS, ESTS, and STS | A multidisciplinary team of 10-20 balanced members, including clinicians, various methodologic experts (such as statisticians, epidemiologists, and/or public health specialists), and, if needed, representatives from populations expected to benefit from the guideline. | The patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time (PICOT) framework | Experts in clinical content, an expert in systematic review, and an expert in searching for relevant evidence | The Risk Of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool for randomized trials, the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) in a meta-analysis, and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) frameworks | Individuals being considered for the writing committee should comprehensively declare interests and activities that may result in COI or the appearance of COI with development group activities through written disclosure before selection. The Chair or Co-Chairs should not have any relevant COI, and other members should either have no relevant COIs or those deemed manageable only. | Members with potential COI are excluded from related votes. A 75% provisional agreement of present members is required to advance a recommendation. The Delphi Method requires an 80% response rate and at least 75% agreement for approval of an individual recommendation. Voting continues based on anonymous feedback until a consensus is reached. | No economic evaluation for treatment interventions; recommendations for best practice care should be provided. |
| Organizations . | Writing committee composition . | Standards for initiating a systematic review . | Evidence review committee . | Evidence appraisal system . | Conflict of interest (COI) . | Recommendations . | Economic consideration . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AATS, EACTS, ESTS, and STS | A multidisciplinary team of 10-20 balanced members, including clinicians, various methodologic experts (such as statisticians, epidemiologists, and/or public health specialists), and, if needed, representatives from populations expected to benefit from the guideline. | The patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time (PICOT) framework | Experts in clinical content, an expert in systematic review, and an expert in searching for relevant evidence | The Risk Of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool for randomized trials, the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) in a meta-analysis, and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) frameworks | Individuals being considered for the writing committee should comprehensively declare interests and activities that may result in COI or the appearance of COI with development group activities through written disclosure before selection. The Chair or Co-Chairs should not have any relevant COI, and other members should either have no relevant COIs or those deemed manageable only. | Members with potential COI are excluded from related votes. A 75% provisional agreement of present members is required to advance a recommendation. The Delphi Method requires an 80% response rate and at least 75% agreement for approval of an individual recommendation. Voting continues based on anonymous feedback until a consensus is reached. | No economic evaluation for treatment interventions; recommendations for best practice care should be provided. |
AATS, American Association for Thoracic Surgery; EACTS, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery; ESTS, European Society of Thoracic Surgeons; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
