A systematic decision-making process on the need for updating clinical practice guidelines proved to be feasible in a pilot study.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to test and evaluate a new decision-making process on the need for updating within the update of a German clinical practice guideline (CPG).

Study Design And Setting: The pilot study comprised (1) limited searches in Pubmed to identify new potentially relevant evidence, (2) an online survey among the members of the CPG group to assess the need for update, and (3) a consensus conference for determination and prioritization of guideline sections with a high need for update. Subsequently, we conducted a second online survey to evaluate the procedure.

Results: The searches resulted in 902 abstracts that were graded as new potentially relevant evidence. Twenty five of 39 members of the CPG group (64%) participated in the online survey. Seventy six percent of those took part in the second online survey. The evaluation study found on average a grade of support of the procedure regarding the determination of the need for update of 3.65 (standard deviation: 0.76) on a likert scale with 1 = "no support" to 5 = "very strong support."

Conclusion: The conducted procedure presents a systematic approach for assessing whether and to what extent a CPG requires updating and enables setting priorities for which particular guideline section to update within a CPG.