32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder known in humans. Accurate and timely diagnosis presents numerous challenges.

          Objective:

          These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about VWD diagnosis.

          Methods:

          ASH, ISTH, NHF, and WFH established a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 4 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) supported the guideline-development process, including performing or updating systematic evidence reviews up to 8 January 2020. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subsequently subject to public comment.

          Results:

          The panel agreed on 11 recommendations.

          Conclusions:

          Key recommendations of these guidelines include the role of bleeding-assessment tools in the assessment of patients suspected of VWD, diagnostic assays and laboratory cutoffs for type 1 and type 2 VWD, how to approach a type 1 VWD patient with normalized levels over time, and the role of genetic testing vs phenotypic assays for types 2B and 2N. Future critical research priorities are also identified.

          Related collections

          Most cited references123

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

            In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

              This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Blood Advances
                American Society of Hematology
                2473-9529
                2473-9537
                January 12 2021
                January 12 2021
                January 12 2021
                : 5
                : 1
                : 280-300
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada;
                [2 ]Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA;
                [3 ]Pharmacology Consulting, Princeton Junction, NJ;
                [4 ]Rutgers–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ;
                [5 ]Department of Pediatrics, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO;
                [6 ]Division of Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands;
                [7 ]Marseille, France;
                [8 ]Diagnostic Laboratories, Versiti Blood Research Institute, Milwaukee, WI;
                [9 ]Auburn, ME;
                [10 ]Bloodworks Northwest, Seattle, WA;
                [11 ]Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA;
                [12 ]National Women’s Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand;
                [13 ]Northern Cancer Service, Launceston General Hospital, Launceston, TAS, Australia;
                [14 ]Versiti Blood Research Institute, Milwaukee, WI;
                [15 ]Irish Centre for Vascular Biology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland;
                [16 ]Coraopolis, PA;
                [17 ]Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA;
                [18 ]Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; and
                [19 ]Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS
                Article
                10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003265
                0580c012-c30d-431b-8a70-6e258af7df88
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article