Lifespan of COVID-19 living guideline recommendations: a survival analysis

Background NICE has maintained a portfolio of COVID-19 living guidelines since March 2020. Recommendations within these living guidelines are subject to continuous surveillance and updates in response to triggers. However, the lifespan of individual living guideline recommendations and features that may impact on whether a recommendation becomes out of date sooner, is unknown. Objectives This study aimed to describe the length of time NICE COVID-19 living guideline recommendations have remained valid. Methods All guidelines within NICE’s COVID-19 portfolio were included to determine the lifespan of living guideline recommendations. Data were collected on all recommendations that had been developed, undergone surveillance or updated between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2022. Information on initial publication date, decision to update, and update publication date was extracted. Updates were labelled as major changes in evidence synthesis or minor changes without a substantial change in evidence base. Any recommendation that had not been updated or withdrawn was censored. Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier Curve) was carried out to determine the lifespan of recommendations. Results Overall, 26 COVID-19 living guidelines and 1182 recommendations were included in the analysis. Living recommendations had median survival time of 739 days (IQR: 332, 781). Based on recommendation type, intervention recommendations had a shorter survival time (354 days, IQR 312, 775) compared to diagnosis (368 days, IQR: 328, 795), patient experience (733 days, IQR: 345, 795) and service delivery (739 days, IQR: 643, 781). Within intervention type, pharmacological recommendations had shortest survival time versus non-pharmacological recommendations [335 days (IQR: 161, 775) vs 775 days (IQR: 354, 775)]. Updates were published an average of 29.12 days following a surveillance decision. Conclusion Within living guidelines, some recommendations need to be updated sooner than others. This study outlines the value of a flexible responsive approach to surveillance within the living mode according to pace of change and expectation of update triggers. Key findings Within the context of a living guideline, some recommendations will become out of date sooner than others. What this adds to what was known? This study supports the concept of prioritising recommendations within a guideline to be living. What is the implication and what should change now? Guideline developers should consider which recommendations within a living guideline would have the most value in being maintained as living to optimise resources. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors