Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- evidence (2) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
One of the great challenges the world faces in terms of health care is the increasing number of
people living with neuro-disabilities that affect their ability to participate in societal activities.
Various neurological conditions such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, or Parkinson’s disease, to name
just a few, change cognitive, sensory, or motor capacities, alter the emotional well-being of those
affected, and lead to disability in their everyday lives.
Over the last few decades, aging populations and reduced mortality in many regions of the world
have increased the number of people living with neuro-disabilities considerably, an effect that is
still ongoing (1): for 2017, the worldwide prevalence of stroke (thousands) has been estimated to
be as high as 104178.7 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 98454.0–110125.0), and years lived with
disabilities (YLD) (counts in thousands) caused by stroke were reported to amount to 18695.4
(95% CI 13,574–23686.9). The stroke-related increase in YLD (percentage change in counts)
was 40% (95% CI 38.4–41.4) from 1990 to 2007 and another 43.6% (39.6–47.8) during only 10
years from 2007 to 2017. The numbers are similarly impressive for other neurological disorders
(i.e., dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headache
disorders, and others). Taken together, their worldwide prevalence (in thousands) in 2017 was
3121435.3 (95% CI 2951124.5–3316268.0), while YLD (thousands) in 2017 were 3121435.3 (95%
CI 2951124.5–3316268.0), with an increase in YLD by 35.1% (95% CI 31.9–38.1) from 1990 to 2007
and by a further 17.8% (95% CI 15.8–20.2) from 2007 to 2017.
These numbers not only demonstrate the huge global burden of disease and prevailing
neuro-disabilities, but they indicate a considerable increase in the number of people living with
neuro-disabilities with an accelerating dynamic over time (for stroke).
Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.