Skip to main content


  • Georgios Lyratzopoulos (a1), Steven Barnes (a2), Heather Stegenga (a2), Suzi Peden (a2) and Bruce Campbell (a3)...

Background: Keeping clinical practice recommendations up-to-date with a continually evolving evidence base presents challenges. Resources required to update recommendations compete with those needed to evaluate newer treatments.

Methods: We describe an approach developed by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for updating clinical practice recommendations for new interventional procedures and we evaluate relevant initial experience of using this system. Depending on whether evidence for a procedure is judged adequate or inadequate for safety and efficacy, use in clinical practice is usually recommended with either “normal” or “special” arrangements for patient consent, data collection and institutional oversight, respectively. We examined whether differences in the state of the evidence at the initial and the updated appraisal of procedures were associated with changed recommendations.

Results: Since 2008, updating of recommendations focuses on procedures with initially inadequate evidence. “Special arrangements” recommendations about eleven procedures were updated after 3.3–6.5 years (median, 5.3 years), and recommendations for six were changed to “normal arrangements.” Overall, procedures with changed (“special-to-normal”) recommendations had a greater increase in the number of patients included in observational studies published since the initial guidance.

Conclusions: Procedures with changed (“special-to-normal”) recommendations generally had greater increases in their evidence base. Although uncertainties about optimal methods for keeping evidence-based recommendations up-to-date remain, this experience should be useful to policy makers in developing processes for prioritizing scarce resources for updating clinical practice recommendations. Further studies are needed about the value placed on “updated” recommendations by clinicians, policy-makers, and patients.

Hide All
1.Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326.
2.Campbell WB, Barnes SJ, Kirby RA, Willett SL, Wortley S, Lyratzopoulos G. Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:101107.
3.Ceulen RP, Sommer A, Vernooy K. Microembolism during foam sclerotherapy of varicose veins. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:15251526.
4.EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair and outcome in patients unfit for open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 2): Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:21872192.
5.EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:21792186.
6.French SD, McDonald S, McKenzie JE, Green SE. Investing in updating: How do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated? BMC Med Res Method. 2005;5:33.
7.Garritty C, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews: An International Survey. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9914. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009914
8.Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke M, Moher R, French S, Scholten R, Eisinga A. Development of a decision tool for updating Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Colloquium Abstract Journal. (accessed December 12, 2008).
9.Lopes RD, Hafley GE, Allen KB, et al. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:235244.
10.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Programme. Process guide, 2009.
11.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Guidance 343: Endoscopic saphenous vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: Guidance.
12.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Programme. Methods Guide, 2007.
13.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Published interventional procedures. Guidance list.
14.Sampson M, Shojania KG, McGowan J, et al. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:755762.
15.Shekelle P, Newberry S, Maglione M, et al. Assessment of the need to update comparative effectiveness reviews: Report of an initial rapid program assessment (2005–2009) [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2009.
16.Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: How quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA. 2001;286:14611467.
17.Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224233.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Lyratzopoulos Online Supplement
Lyratzopoulos Online Supplement

 Word (47 KB)
47 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 17 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 142 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.