OBJECTIVES: To identify and review the most up-to-date guidelines pertaining to bladder trauma in a unifying document as an updated primer in the management of all aspects relating to bladder injury. METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA statement, the most recent guidelines pertaining to bladder injury were identified and subsequently critically appraised. An electronic search of PubMed and Scopus databases was carried out in September 2023. RESULTS: A total of six guidelines were included: European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urological trauma (2023), EAU guidelines on paediatric urology (2022), Urotrauma: American Urological Association (AUA) (2020), Kidney and Uro-trauma: World Society of Emergency Surgery and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (WSES-AAST) guidelines (2019), Management of blunt force bladder injuries: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) (2019), and EAU guidelines on iatrogenic trauma (2012). Recommendations were summarised with the associated supporting level of evidence and strength of recommendation where available. CONCLUSION: Several widely recognised professional organisations have published guidelines relating to the diagnosis, investigation, classification, management, and follow-up related to bladder injury. There is consensus amongst all major guidelines in terms of diagnosis and management but there is some discrepancy and lack of recommendation with regards to the follow-up of bladder injuries, iatrogenic bladder injury, paediatric bladder trauma, and spontaneous bladder rupture. The role of increasing minimally invasive techniques seem to be gaining traction in the select haemodynamically stable patient. Further research is required to better delineate this treatment option.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the etiology of vasa previa and the risk factors and associated condition, to identify the various clinical presentations of vasa previa, to describe the ultrasound tools used in its diagnosis, and to describe the management of vasa previa. OUTCOMES: Reduction of perinatal mortality, short-term neonatal morbidity, long-term infant morbidity, and short-term and long-term maternal morbidity and mortality. EVIDENCE: Published literature on randomized trials prospective cohort studies, and selected retrospective cohort studies was retrieved through searches of PubMed or Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., selected epidemiological studies comparing delivery by Caesarean section with vaginal delivery studies comparing outcomes when vasa previa is diagnosed antenatally vs.intrapartum) and key words (e.g. vasa previa). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated into the guideline to October 1, 2008. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies,clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and from national and international medical specialty societies. VALUES: The evidence collected was reviewed by the Diagnostic Imaging Committee and the Maternal Fetal Medicine Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) and quantified using the evaluation of evidence guidelines developed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The benefit expected from this guideline is facilitation of optimal and uniform care for pregnancies complicated by vasa previa. SPONSORS: The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

BACKGROUND: Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 2006. The severity assessment criteria for acute pancreatitis were later revised by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in 2008, leading to their publication as the JPN Guidelines 2010. Following the 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classifications of Acute Pancreatitis, in which the classifications of regional complications of pancreatitis were revised, the development of a minimally invasive method for local complications of pancreatitis spread, and emerging evidence was gathered and revised into the JPN Guidelines. METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation was carried out on the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, severity, treatment, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and clinical indicators, based on the concepts of the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With the graded recommendations, where the evidence was unclear, Meta-Analysis team for JPN Guidelines 2015 conducted an additional new meta-analysis, the results of which were included in the guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-nine questions were prepared in 17 subject areas, for which 43 recommendations were made. The 17 subject areas were: Diagnosis, Diagnostic imaging, Etiology, Severity assessment, Transfer indication, Fluid therapy, Nasogastric tube, Pain control, Antibiotics prophylaxis, Protease inhibitor, Nutritional support, Intensive care, management of Biliary Pancreatitis, management of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, Interventions for the local complications, Post-ERCP pancreatitis and Clinical Indicator (Pancreatitis Bundles 2015). Meta-analysis was conducted in the following four subject areas based on randomized controlled trials: (1) prophylactic antibiotics use; (2) prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; (3) prophylactic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; and (4) peritoneal lavage. Using the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded to create useful information. In addition, a mobile application was developed, which made it possible to diagnose, assess severity and check pancreatitis bundles. CONCLUSIONS: The JPN Guidelines 2015 were prepared using the most up-to-date methods, and including the latest recommended medical treatments, and we are confident that this will make them easy for many clinicians to use, and will provide a useful tool in the decision-making process for the treatment of patients, and optimal medical support. The free mobile application and calculator for the JPN Guidelines 2015 is available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/jpn-guideline2015.html.

We convened a multidisciplinary Working Party on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists to update the 2011 guidance on the peri-operative management of people with hip fracture. Importantly, these guidelines describe the core aims and principles of peri-operative management, recommending greater standardisation of anaesthetic practice as a component of multidisciplinary care. Although much of the 2011 guidance remains applicable to contemporary practice, new evidence and consensus inform the additional recommendations made in this document. Specific changes to the 2011 guidance relate to analgesia, medicolegal practice, risk assessment, bone cement implantation syndrome and regional review networks. Areas of controversy remain, and we discuss these in further detail, relating to the mode of anaesthesia, surgical delay, blood management and transfusion thresholds, echocardiography, anticoagulant and antiplatelet management and postoperative discharge destination. Finally, these guidelines provide links to supplemental online material that can be used at readers' institutions, key references and UK national guidance about the peri-operative care of people with hip and periprosthetic fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Antenatal screening/testing of pregnant women should be carried out according to the guidelines of the National Health Service (NHS) Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Screening Programme. Newborn screening and, when necessary, follow-up testing and referral, should be carried out according to the guidelines of the NHS Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Screening Programme. All babies under 1 year of age arriving in the United Kingdom should be offered screening for sickle cell disease (SCD). Preoperative screening for SCD should be carried out in patients from ethnic groups in which there is a significant prevalence of the condition. Emergency screening with a sickle solubility test must always be followed by definitive analysis. Laboratories performing antenatal screening should utilise methods that are capable of detecting significant variants and are capable of quantitating haemoglobins A2 and F at the cut-off points required by the national antenatal screening programme. The laboratory must ensure a provisional report is available for antenatal patients within three working days from sample receipt.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is inconsistent, despite their potential to improve the quality of health care and patient outcomes. Some guideline producers have addressed this problem by developing tools to encourage faster adoption of new guidelines. This review focuses on the effectiveness of tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to improve the uptake of their CPGs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of implementation tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers, which accompany or follow the publication of a CPG, to promote uptake. A secondary objective is to determine which approaches to guideline implementation are most effective. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); NHS Economic Evaluation Database, HTA Database; MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Dissertations and Theses, ProQuest; Index to Theses; Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Knowledge; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, ISI Web of Knowledge; Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and NHS Evidence up to February 2016. We also searched trials registers, reference lists of included studies and relevant websites. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies evaluating the effects of guideline implementation tools developed by recognised guideline producers to improve the uptake of their own guidelines. The guideline could target any clinical area. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' criteria. We graded our confidence in the evidence using the approach recommended by the GRADE working group. The clinical conditions targeted and the implementation tools used were too heterogenous to combine data for meta-analysis. We report the median absolute risk difference (ARD) and interquartile range (IQR) for the main outcome of adherence to guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: We included four cluster-RCTs that were conducted in the Netherlands, France, the USA and Canada. These studies evaluated the effects of tools developed by national guideline producers to implement their CPGs. The implementation tools evaluated targeted healthcare professionals; none targeted healthcare organisations or patients.One study used two short educational workshops tailored to barriers. In three studies the intervention consisted of the provision of paper-based educational materials, order forms or reminders, or both. The clinical condition, type of healthcare professional, and behaviour targeted by the CPG varied across studies.Two of the four included studies reported data on healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines. A guideline tool developed by the producers of a guideline probably leads to increased adherence to the guidelines; median ARD (IQR) was 0.135 (0.115 and 0.159 for the two studies respectively) at an average four-week follow-up (moderate certainty evidence), which indicates a median 13.5% greater adherence to guidelines in the intervention group. Providing healthcare professionals with a tool to improve implementation of a guideline may lead to little or no difference in costs to the health service. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implementation tools developed by recognised guideline producers probably lead to improved healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines in the management of non-specific low back pain and ordering thyroid-function tests. There are limited data on the relative costs of implementing these interventions.There are no studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions targeting the organisation of care (e.g. benchmarking tools, costing templates, etc.), or for mass media interventions. We could not draw any conclusions about our second objective, the comparative effectiveness of implementation tools, due to the small number of studies, the heterogeneity between interventions, and the clinical conditions that were targeted.

INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) encompasses a group of minimally invasive techniques used to focally ablate an area of PCa whilst preserving the surrounding benign tissue. The evidence for FT is currently limited and as such, Urological guidelines do not offer much guidance for clinicians. However, multiple consensus statements have been published on several aspects of FT. This article contains a summary and discussion of international guidelines, position statements and consensus statements in relation to FT. METHODS: EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG and AUA/ASTRO/SUO guidelines were interrogated for recommendations for FT. PubMed and Ovid Medline were searched for consensus statements. Only studies in English since 2015 were included. Reference lists of the included articles were also interrogated and a manual search for studies was also performed. RESULTS: Our results showed a lack of long-term randomised data for FT. International Urological guidelines emphasised the need for more high-quality clinical trials with robust oncological and toxicity outcomes. Consensus and positions statements were heterogenous. CONCLUSION: A globally accepted guideline for FT planning, technique and follow up are still yet to be determined. Well-designed studies with long term follow up and robust clinical and toxicity endpoints are needed to improve our understanding of FT and create uniform guidelines to streamline management and follow up.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 14th of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on reporting guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: There is little empirical evidence that addresses these questions. Our answers are based on logical arguments and standards put forward by other groups. What standard types of recommendations or reports should WHO use? WHO should develop standard formats for reporting recommendations to facilitate recognition and use by decision makers for whom the recommendations are intended, and to ensure that all the information needed to judge the quality of a guideline, determine its applicability and, if needed, adapt it, is reported. WHO should develop standard formats for full systematically developed guidelines that are sponsored by WHO, rapid assessments, and guidelines that are endorsed by WHO. All three formats should include the same information as full guidelines, indicating explicitly what the group preparing the guideline did not do, as well as the methods that were used. These formats should be used across clinical, public health and health systems recommendations. How should recommendations be formulated and reported? Reports should be structured, using headings that correspond to those suggested by the Conference on Guideline Standardization or similar headings. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations should be reported explicitly using a standard approach. The way in which recommendations are formulated should be adapted to the specific characteristics of a specific guideline. Urgent attention should be given to developing a template that provides decision makers with the relevant global evidence that is needed to inform a decision and offers practical methods for incorporating the context specific evidence and judgements that are needed.

This article has no abstract