Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; none were involved with the peer review of this article or decision to publish. B.H. previously received honoraria from Eversana for provision of methodologic advice related to the conduct of systematic reviews. J.M. is a co-convenor of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. C.M.G. is the co-convenor of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and provides consultancy to Cochrane Response. S.L. is the Joint Coordinating Editor of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and Chair of the Governance Group of the Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative (GESI).

No abstract

Developing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) is expensive and time-consuming and therefore often unrealistic in settings with limited funding or resources. Although CPGs form the cornerstone of providing synthesised, systematic, evidence-based guidance to patients, healthcare practitioners and managers, there is no added benefit in developing new CPGs when there are accessible, good-quality, up-to-date CPGs available that can be adapted to fit local needs. Different approaches to CPG development have been proposed, including adopting, adapting or contextualising existing high-quality CPGs to make recommendations relevant to local contexts. These approaches are attractive where technical and financial resources are limited and high-quality guidance already exists. However, few examples exist to showcase such alternative approaches to CPG development. The South African Guidelines Excellence project held a workshop in 2017 to provide an opportunity for dialogue regarding different approaches to guideline development with key examples and case studies from the South African setting. Four CPGs represented the topics: mental health, health promotion, chronic musculoskeletal pain and prehospital emergency care. Each CPG used a different approach, however, using transparent, reportable methods. They included advisory groups with representation from content experts, CPG users and methodologists. They assessed CPGs and systematic reviews for adopting or adapting. Each team considered local context issues through qualitative research or stakeholder engagement. Lessons learnt include that South Africa needs fit-for-purpose guidelines and that existing appropriate, high-quality guidelines must be taken into account. Approaches for adapting guidelines are not clear globally and there are lessons to be learnt from existing descriptions of approaches from South Africa.

IntroductionTrauma scoring systems are widely used in emergency settings to guide clinical decisions and to predict mortality. It remains unclear which system is most suitable to use for patients with gunshot injuries at district-level hospitals. This study compares the Triage Early Warning Score (TEWS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) as predictors of mortality among patients with gunshot injuries at a district-level urban public hospital in Cape Town, South Africa.MethodsGunshot-related patients admitted to the resuscitation area of Khayelitsha Hospital between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to determine the accuracy of each score to predict all-cause in-hospital mortality. The odds ratio (with 95% confidence intervals) was used as a measure of association.ResultsIn total, 331 patients were included in analysing the different scores (abstracted from database n = 431, excluded: missing files n = 16, non gunshot injury n = 10, <14 years n = 1, information incomplete to calculate scores n = 73). The mortality rate was 6% (n = 20). The TRISS and KTS had the highest area under the ROC curve (AUC), 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.96) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.79–0.94), respectively. The KTS had the highest sensitivity (90%, 95% CI 68-99%), while the TEWS and RTS had the highest specificity (91%, 95% CI 87–94% each).ConclusionsNone of the different scoring systems performed better in predicting mortality in this high-trauma burden area. The results are limited by the low number of recorded deaths and further studies are needed.

ObjectivesMethods on developing new (de novo) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have received substantial attention. However, the volume of literature is not matched by research into alternative methods of CPG development using existing CPG documents—a specific issue for guideline development groups in low- and middle-income countries. We report on how we developed a context specific prehospital CPG using an alternative guideline development method. Difficulties experienced and lessons learnt in applying existing global guidelines’ recommendations to a national context are highlighted.ResultsThe project produced the first emergency care CPG for prehospital providers in Africa. It included > 270 CPGs and produced over 1000 recommendations for prehospital emergency care. We encountered various difficulties, including (1) applicability issues: few pre-hospital CPGs applicable to Africa, (2) evidence synthesis: heterogeneous levels of evidence classifications and (3) guideline quality. Learning points included (1) focusing on key CPGs and evidence mapping, (2) searching other resources for CPGs, (3) broad representation on CPG advisory boards and (4) transparency and knowledge translation. Re-inventing the wheel to produce CPGs is not always feasible. We hope this paper will encourage further projects to use existing CPGs in developing guidance to improve patient care in resource-limited settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3210-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.