Pessah‐Pollack, Rachel

<P>Objective: The first edition of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology/American College of Endocrinology/Associazione Medici Endocrinologi Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Thyroid Nodules was published in 2006 and updated in 2010 and 2016. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology/American College of Endocrinology/Associazione Medici Endocrinologi multidisciplinary thyroid nodules task force was charged with developing a novel interactive electronic algorithmic tool to evaluate thyroid nodules. <P> Methods: The Thyroid Nodule App (termed TNAPP) was based on the updated 2016 clinical practice guideline recommendations while incorporating recent scientific evidence and avoiding unnecessary diagnostic procedures and surgical overtreatment. This manuscript describes the algorithmic tool development, its data requirements, and its basis for decision making. It provides links to the web-based algorithmic tool and a tutorial. <P> Results: TNAPP and TI-RADS were cross-checked on 95 thyroid nodules with histology-proven diagnoses. <P> Conclusion: TNAPP is a novel interactive web-based tool that uses clinical, imaging, cytologic, and molecular marker data to guide clinical decision making to evaluate and manage thyroid nodules. It may be used as a heuristic tool for evaluating and managing patients with thyroid nodules. It can be adapted to create registries for solo practices, large multispecialty delivery systems, regional and national databases, and research consortiums. Prospective studies are underway to validate TNAPP to determine how it compares with other ultrasound-based classification systems and whether it can improve the care of patients with clinically significant thyroid nodules while reducing the substantial burden incurred by those who do not benefit from further evaluation and treatment.</P>

Objective: The development of these guidelines is sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Methods: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. Results: The Executive Summary of this 2020 updated guideline contains 52 recommendations: 21 Grade A (40%), 24 Grade B (46%), 7 Grade C (14%), and no Grade D (0%). These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world care of patients. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for the Executive Summary recommendations. This update contains 368 citations: 123 (33.5%) EL 1 (highest), 132 (36%) EL 2 (intermediate), 20 (5.5%) EL 3 (weak), and 93 (25%) EL 4 (lowest). New or updated topics in this CPG include: clarification of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, stratification of the patient according to high-risk and very high-risk features, a new dual action therapy option, and transitions from therapeutic options. Conclusion: This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Objective The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists. Methods Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts. Results New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity‐based chronic disease complications‐centric model, nuance‐based and algorithm/checklist‐assisted clinical decision‐making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest). Conclusions Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher‐risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision‐making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.