European Stroke Organisation (ESO) standard operating procedure for the preparation and publishing of guidelines
- PMID: 34746429
- PMCID: PMC8564158
- DOI: 10.1177/23969873211024143
European Stroke Organisation (ESO) standard operating procedure for the preparation and publishing of guidelines
Abstract
The first European Stroke Organization (ESO) standard operating procedure (SOP) published in 2015 aimed at the implementation the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to provide evidence-based guidelines for stroke management. This second ESO-SOP is aiming at further increase of the practicability of ESO guidelines and its technical implications. Authors comprised of the members of the ESO guideline Board and ESO Executive Committee. The final document was agreed on by several internal reviews. The second SOP comprises of the following aspects: rational for the SOP, the introduction of expert consensus statements, types of guideline documents, structures involved and detailed description of the guideline preparation process, handling of financial and intellectual conflicts of interest (CoI), involvement of ESO members in the guideline process, review process, authorship and publication policy, updating of guidelines, cooperation with other societies, and dealing with falsified data. This second SOP supersedes the first SOP published in 2015.
Keywords: Development; GRADE (Recommendations Assessment; Guideline; and Evaluation); evidence-based medicine; guideline development; review.
© European Stroke Organisation 2021.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of conflicting interests: AHA is an employee of the Oslo University Hospital, Norway. AHA reports fee for lecturing from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Allergan, Teva, Novartis, Roche, and Teva and research grant from Medtronic and Boehringer Ingelheim outside submitted work. HC is an employee of Bispebjerg og Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen Denmark. HC has nothing to disclose. MD is an employee of LMU Klinikum, Institut für Schlaganfall- und Demenzforschung (ISD) in Munich, Germany. MD has nothing to disclose. BF is an employee of Hospital Universitario La Paz in Madrid, Spain. BF has nothing to disclose. EK is an employee of the Imperial College London Charing Cross Hospital, UK. EK has received travel grants from Pfizer and Bayer and reports advisory board for Pfizer outside the submitted work. PK is an employee of University of Cincinnati, USA. PK has nothing to disclose. JMF is an employee of the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau in Barcelona, Spain. JMF has nothing to disclose. BN is an employee of the Lund University Hospital in Sweden. BN reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca and Bayer outside the submitted work. TQ is an employee of the University of Glasgow, Scotland. TQ has nothing to disclose. SS is an employee of the University of L’Aquila, Italy. SS reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Allergan, Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, Eli Lilly, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Abbott, Medscape, other from Pfizer, non-financial support from Bayer, Medtronic, Starmed, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo outside the submitted work. TS is an employee of the Klinikum Frankfurt Höchst, Germany and the Heidelberg University Hospital. TS reports personal fees Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS Pfizer, Daiichy Sankyo, Portola outside the submitted work. DT is an employee of Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. DT report personal fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, outside the submitted work. GT is an employee of Sainte-Anne hospital, Université de Paris, France. GT reports personal fees from Guerbet France, outside the submitted work. MZ is an employee of Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Reggio Emilia, Italy. MZ has nothing to disclose.
Figures
References
-
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al.. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence–imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1283–1293. - PubMed
-
- Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al.. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383–394. - PubMed
-
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al.. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 395–400. - PubMed
-
- Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al.. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401–406. - PubMed
-
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al.. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407–415. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources