The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95

BackgroundHiatal hernia (HH) is a common condition. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of HH.MethodsSystematic reviews were conducted for four key questions regarding the treatment of HH in adults: surgical treatment of asymptomatic HH versus surveillance; use of mesh versus no mesh; performing a fundoplication versus no fundoplication; and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus redo fundoplication for recurrent HH. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology by subject experts. When the evidence was insufficient to base recommendations on, expert opinion was utilized instead. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.ResultsThe panel provided one conditional recommendation and two expert opinions for adults with HH. The panel suggested routinely performing a fundoplication in the repair of HH, though this was based on low certainty evidence. There was insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations regarding surgical repair of asymptomatic HH or conversion to RYGB in recurrent HH, and therefore, only expert opinions were offered. The panel suggested that select asymptomatic patients may be offered surgical repair, with criteria outlined. Similarly, it suggested that conversion to RYGB for management of recurrent HH may be appropriate in certain patients and again described criteria. The evidence for the routine use of mesh in HH repair was equivocal and the panel deferred making a recommendation.ConclusionsThese recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of HH and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and consideration of patient values to optimize outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs will improve the evidence base and may allow for stronger recommendations in future evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of HH.

Background When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this guideline is to develop evidence-based recommendations for pregnant patients presenting with common surgical pathologies including appendicitis, biliary disease, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Methods The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee convened a working group to address these issues. The group generated five key questions and completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. An expert panel then met to form evidence-based recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Expert opinion was utilized when the available evidence was deemed insufficient.Results The expert panel agreed on ten recommendations addressing the management of appendicitis, biliary disease, and IBD during pregnancy.Conclusions Conditional recommendations were made in favor of appendectomy over nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over nonoperative treatment of biliary disease and acute cholecystitis specifically. Based on expert opinion, the panel also suggested either operative or nonoperative treatment of biliary diseases other than acute cholecystitis in the third trimester, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rather than common bile duct exploration for symptomatic choledocholithiasis, applying the same criteria for emergent surgical intervention in pregnant and non-pregnant IBD patients, utilizing an open rather than minimally invasive approach for pregnant patients requiring emergent surgical treatment of IBD, and managing pregnant patients with active IBD flares in a multidisciplinary fashion at centers with IBD expertise.

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive surgery has been used for both de novo insertion and salvage of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters. Advanced laparoscopic, basic laparoscopic, open, and image-guided techniques have evolved as the most popular techniques. The aim of this guideline was to develop evidence-based guidelines that support surgeons, patients, and other physicians in decisions on minimally invasive peritoneal dialysis access and the salvage of malfunctioning catheters in both adults and children.METHODS:A guidelines committee panel of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons reviewed the literature since the prior guideline was published in 2014 and developed seven key questions in adults and four in children. After a systematic review of the literature, by the panel, evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.RESULTS:After systematic review, data extraction, and evidence to decision meetings, the panel agreed on twelve recommendations for the peri-operative performance of laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis access surgery and management of catheter dysfunction.CONCLUSIONS:In the adult population, conditional recommendations were made in favor of: staged hernia repair followed by PD catheter insertion over simultaneous and traditional start over urgent start of PD when medically possible. Furthermore, the panel suggested advanced laparoscopic insertion techniques rather than basic laparoscopic techniques or open insertion. Conditional recommendations were made for either advanced laparoscopic or image-guided percutaneous insertion and for either nonoperative or operative salvage. A recommendation could not be made regarding concomitant clean-contaminated surgery in adults. In the pediatric population, conditional recommendations were made for either traditional or urgent start of PD, concomitant clean or clean-contaminated surgery and PD catheter placement rather than staged, and advanced laparoscopic placement rather than basic or open insertion.

Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver’s two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies. A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations. The panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence). Given the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines. The multidisciplinary management of both primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) may include liver-directed therapies as part of treatment algorithms; these algorithms focus heavily on control of liver-specific disease as in many cases this serves as a proxy for long-term survival. Hepatectomy is the primary treatment option in patients who can tolerate resection for both HCC and CRLM. Liver-directed therapies include arterial embolization, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and liver ablation. Over the last several decades, microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver tumors have been used in high-risk patients unfit for surgical intervention or tumors not amenable to local control with other therapies. As ablation is an evolving technology, outcomes data are primarily reported in liver tumors less than 3 cm in diameter, while data for liver tumors greater than 3 cm are limited for both HCC and CRLM. The authors sought to perform a systematic review of the existing data to assess for meaningful conclusions. Therefore, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others regarding the role of liver ablation in the treatment of HCC and CRLM up to 5 cm in diameter. A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding the use of either MWA or RFA for solitary HCC or CRLM. Due to the paucity of evidence available, HCC and CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter were combined into two final KQs which were used to develop recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject matter experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research. All guideline recommendations were assigned “conditional” recommendations. These were based on the GRADE approach. The words “the guideline panel suggests” were used for conditional recommendations. The aim of these guidelines is to assist surgeons and physicians in making management decisions for patients with HCC or CRLM. Given that the evidence for this guideline was based on very low certainty evidence, these guidelines should be applied with caution. They are also intended to provide education, inform advocacy, and describe future areas for research. The guidelines are not meant to mandate a particular approach or strategy given the lack of evidence and intricacies of the healthcare environment, individual patient needs, comorbidities, and surgeon experience. Specific situations require adjustment of treatment plans to suit the needs and priorities of the individual patient. Finally, since the guidelines take a patient-centered approach, patients can use these guidelines as a source of information and for discussion with their physicians.

With the emergence of the largest randomized control trial to date-the Stroke Protection With Sentinel During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (PROTECTED TAVR) study-we sought to con-duct an updated meta-analyses to evaluate the utility of CEP devices on both clinical outcomes and neuroimaging parameters. Electronic databases were queried through November 2022 for clinical trials comparing the utility of Cerebral Embolic Protection (CEP) devi-ces in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with non-CEP TAVR procedures. Meta -analyses were performed using the generic inverse variance technique, and a random-effects model, and results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HR) for dichotomous outcomes. Outcomes of interest included stroke, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, bleeding, mortality, vascular complications, new ischemic lesions, acute kidney injury (AKI), and total lesion volume. Thirteen studies (8 RCTs, 5 observational studies) consisting of 128,471 patients were included in the analysis. Results from our meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in stroke (OR: 0.84 [0.74-0.95]; P < 0.01; I-2 = 0%), disabling stroke (OR: 0.37 [0.21-0.67]; P < 0.01; I-2 = 0%) and bleeding events (OR: 0.91 [0.83-0.99]; P = 0.04; I-2 = 0%) through CEP device use in TAVR. The use of CEP devices had no significant impact on nondisabling stroke (OR: 0.94 [0.65-1.37]; P < 0.01; I-2 = 0%), mortality (OR: 0.78 [0.53-1.14]; P < 0.01; I-2 = 17%), vascular complica-tions (OR: 0.99 [0.63-1.57]; P < 0.01; I-2 = 28%), AKI (OR: 0.78 [0.46-1.32]; P < 0.01; I-2 = 0%), new ischemic lesions (MD: -1.72 [-4.01, 0.57]; P < 0.001; I-2 = 95%) and total lesion volume (MD: -46.11 [-97.38, 5.16]; P < 0.001; I-2 = 81%). The results suggest that CEP device use was associated with a lower risk of disabling stroke and bleeding events in patients undergoing TAVR. (Curr Probl Cardiol 2023;48:101675.)

Objectives: We describe how consideration of external evidence may play an important role in judging certainty in the process of establishing the certainty of the evidence. Our example is a network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing treatment for Ebola virus disease, which informed a World Health Organization guideline.Study Design and Setting: Through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) project group iterative online, in-person and email discussions, we developed this GRADE concept and obtained approval from the GRADE working group. Using the null as a threshold, we rated our certainty for network estimates in mortality, including consideration of evidence external to the NMA (i.e., did not meet eligibility criteria) and formal logical construction.Results: Based on the existing GRADE guidance, we rated the network estimate for one indirect comparison as low certainty. The formal logical construction that lead us reevaluate the certainty of the evidence is as follows: if A is superior to B, and B is not inferior to C, then A must be superior to C. After considering the logic and the external indirect evidence, we concluded at least moderate certainty for the comparison.Conclusion: Systematic review authors and guideline developers should apply the fundamental logical construction for indirect comparisons and consider compelling external evidence in NMA certainty ratings.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BackgroundColorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM.MethodsSystematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research.ResultsThe panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence.ConclusionsThese evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM.

OBJECTIVES:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance.RESULTS:Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations.CONCLUSIONS:Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

BACKGROUND:"Biological plausibility" is a concept frequently referred to in environmental and public health when researchers are evaluating how confident they are in the results and inferences of a study or evidence review. Biological plausibility is not, however, a domain of one of the most widely-used approaches for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) which underpins the findings of a systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) CoE Framework. Whether the omission of biological plausibility is a potential limitation of the GRADE CoE Framework is a topic that is regularly discussed, especially in the context of environmental health systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES:We analyse how the concept of "biological plausibility", as applied in the context of assessing certainty of the evidence that supports the findings of a systematic review, is accommodated under the processes of systematic review and the existing GRADE domains. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:We argue that "biological plausibility" is a concept which primarily comes into play when direct evidence about the effects of an exposure on a population of concern (usually humans) is absent, at high risk of bias, is inconsistent, or limited in other ways. In such circumstances, researchers look toward evidence from other study designs in order to draw conclusions. In this respect, we can consider experimental animal and in vitro evidence as "surrogates" for the target populations, exposures, comparators and outcomes of actual interest. Through discussion of 10 examples of experimental surrogates, we propose that the concept of biological plausibility consists of two principal aspects: a "generalisability aspect" and a "mechanistic aspect". The "generalisability aspect" concerns the validity of inferences from experimental models to human scenarios, and asks the same question as does the assessment of external validity or indirectness in systematic reviews. The "mechanistic aspect" concerns certainty in knowledge of biological mechanisms and would inform judgements of indirectness under GRADE, and thus the overall CoE. While both aspects are accommodated under the indirectness domain of the GRADE CoE Framework, further research is needed to determine how to use knowledge of biological mechanisms in the assessment of indirectness of the evidence in systematic reviews.

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor. PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000—September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD). From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95

Background Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm. Methods A systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data. Results From 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm ( p > 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors < 3 cm. Conclusion The available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon–patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

BACKGROUND:SARS-CoV-2 has changed global healthcare since the pandemic began in 2020. The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing insufflation from the standpoint of safety to the operating room personnel is currently being explored. The aims of this guideline are to examine the existing evidence to provide guidance regarding MIS for the patient with, or suspecting of having, the SARS-CoV-2 as well as the healthcare team involved.METHODS:Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 2 key questions (KQ) regarding the safety of MIS in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using a narrative synthesis of the literature by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.RESULTS:In KQ1, a total of 1361 articles were reviewed, with 2 articles meeting inclusion. In KQ2, a total of 977 articles were reviewed, with 4 articles met inclusions criteria, of which 2 studies reported on the SARS-CoV2 virus specifically. Despite many publications in the field, very little well-controlled and unbiased data exist to inform the recommendations. Of that which is available, it shows that both laparoscopic and open operations in Covid-positive patients had similar rates of OR staff positivity rates; however, patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures had a lower perioperative mortality than open procedures. Also, SARS-CoV-2 particles have been detected in the surgical plume at laparoscopy.CONCLUSION:With demonstrated equivalence of operating room staff exposure, and noninferiority of laparoscopic access with respect to mortality, either laparoscopic or open approaches to abdominal operations may be used in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Measures should be employed for all laparoscopic or open cases to prevent exposure of operating room staff to the surgical plume, as virus can be present in this plume.

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive splenectomy (MIS) is increasingly favored for the treatment of benign and malignant diseases of the spleen over open access approaches. While many studies cite the superiority of MIS in terms of decreased morbidity and length of stay over a traditional open approach, the comparative effectiveness of specific technical and peri-operative approaches to MIS is unclear.OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based guidelines that support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions on the peri-operative performance of MIS.METHODS:A guidelines committee panel of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) including methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to grade the certainty of evidence and formulate recommendations.RESULTS:Informed by a systematic review of the evidence, the panel agreed on eight recommendations for the peri-operative performance of MIS for adults and children in elective situations addressing six key questions.CONCLUSIONS:Conditional recommendations were made in favor of lateral positioning for non-hematologic disease, intra-operative platelet administration for patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura instead of preoperative administration, and the use of mechanical devices to control the splenic hilum. Further, a conditional recommendation was made against routine intra-operative drain placement.

Background and ObjectiveThis is the 24th in the ongoing series of articles describing the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of a body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments and how to move from evidence to recommendations in guidelines.MethodsGuideline developers and authors of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses use randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) as sources of evidence for questions about health interventions. RCTs with low risk of bias are the most trustworthy source of evidence for estimating relative effects of interventions because of protection against confounding and other biases. However, in several instances, NRSI can still provide valuable information as complementary, sequential, or replacement evidence for RCTs.ResultsIn this article we offer guidance on the decision regarding when to search for and include either or both types of studies in systematic reviews to inform health recommendations.ConclusionThis work aims to help methodologists in review teams, technology assessors, guideline panelists, and anyone conducting evidence syntheses using GRADE.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Results: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. Conclusion: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

BACKGROUND:Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly used as primary treatment for esophageal achalasia, in place of the options such as Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilatation (PD) OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) intend to support clinicians, patients and others in decisions about the use of POEM for treatment of achalasia.RESULTS:The panel agreed on 4 recommendations for adults and children with achalasia.CONCLUSIONS:Strong recommendation for the use of POEM over PD was issued unless the concern of continued postoperative PPI use remains a key decision-making concern to the patient. Conditional recommendations included the option of using either POEM or HM with fundoplication to treat achalasia, and favored POEM over HM for achalasia subtype III.

Background Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques. Methods Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. Results The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon-patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication. Conclusions These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the impact of guidance and training on the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR) and evaluator burden of the Risk of Bias (RoB) in Non-randomized Studies (NRS) of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, and the RoB instrument for NRS of Exposures (ROB-NRSE).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:In a before-and-after study, seven reviewers appraised the RoB using ROBINS-I (n = 44) and ROB-NRSE (n = 44), before and after guidance and training. We used Gwet's AC1 statistic to calculate IRR and ICR.RESULTS:After guidance and training, the IRR and ICR of the overall bias domain of ROBINS-I and ROB-NRSE improved significantly; with many individual domains showing either a significant (IRR and ICR of ROB-NRSE; ICR of ROBINS-I), or nonsignificant improvement (IRR of ROBINS-I). Evaluator burden significantly decreased after guidance and training for ROBINS-I, whereas for ROB-NRSE there was a slight nonsignificant increase.CONCLUSION:Overall, there was benefit for guidance and training for both tools. We highly recommend guidance and training to reviewers prior to RoB assessments and that future research investigate aspects of guidance and training that are most effective.