Alexander, Paul

Introduction UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified. Objectives Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations. Design Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate. Methods We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate. Results UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation. Conclusion The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations—in UpToDate and elsewhere—when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence.

Abstract Patients who are diagnosed with localized prostate cancer need to make critical treatment decisions that are sensitive to their values and preferences. The role of decision aids in facilitating these decisions is unknown. The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of decision aids for localized prostate cancer. Teams of 2 reviewers independently identified, selected, and abstracted data from 14 eligible trials (n = 3377 men), of which 10 were conducted in North America. Of these, 11 trials compared decision aids with usual care, and 3 trials compared decision aids with other decision aids. Two trials suggested a modest positive impact on decisional regret. Results across studies varied widely for decisional conflict (4 studies), satisfaction with decision (2 studies), and knowledge (2 studies). No impact on treatment choices was observed (6 studies). In conclusion, scant evidence at high risk of bias suggests the variable impact of existing decision aids on a limited set of decisional processes and outcomes. Because current decision aids provide information but do not directly facilitate shared decision making, subsequent efforts would benefit from user‐centered design of decision aids that promote shared decision making. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65: 239–251. © 2015 American Cancer Society.