Lash, Robert W.

Abstract Vitamin D plays a critical role in many physiological functions, including calcium metabolism and musculoskeletal health. This commentary aims to explore the intricate relationships among skin complexion, race, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels, focusing on challenges the Endocrine Society encountered during clinical practice guideline development. Given that increased melanin content reduces 25(OH)D production in the skin in response to UV light, the guideline development panel addressed the potential role for 25(OH)D screening in individuals with dark skin complexion. The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants' skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations. Lessons learned from the guideline development process emphasize the necessity of clarity when incorporating race and ethnicity into clinical guidelines. Such clarity is an essential step toward improving health outcomes and ensuring equitable healthcare practices.

Abstract In an effort to enhance the trustworthiness of its clinical practice guidelines, the Endocrine Society has recently adopted new policies and more rigorous methodologies for its guideline program. In this Clinical Practice Guideline Communication, we describe these recent enhancements—many of which reflect greater adherence to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to guideline development—in addition to the rationale for such changes. Improvements to the Society’s guideline development practices include, but are not limited to, enhanced inclusion of nonendocrinologist experts, including patient representatives, on guideline development panels; implementation of a more rigorous conflict/duality of interest policy; a requirement that all formal recommendations must be demonstrably underpinned by systematic evidence review; the explicit use of GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks; greater use and explanation of standardized guideline language; and a more intentional approach to guideline updating. Lastly, we describe some of the experiential differences our guideline readers are most likely to notice.