Two Years of Experience and Methodology of Korean COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guideline Development
10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e195
- Author:
Miyoung CHOI
1
;
Hyeon-Jeong LEE
;
Su-Yeon YU
;
Jimin KIM
;
Jungeun PARK
;
Seungeun RYOO
;
Inho KIM
;
Dong Ah PARK
;
Young Kyung YOON
;
Joon-Sung JOH
;
Sunghoon PARK
;
Ki Wook YUN
;
Chi-Hoon CHOI
;
Jae-Seok KIM
;
Sue SHIN
;
Hyun KIM
;
Kyungmin HUH
;
In-Seok JEONG
;
Soo-Han CHOI
;
Sung Ho HWANG
;
Hyukmin LEE
;
Dong Keon LEE
;
Hwan Seok YONG
;
Ho Kee YUM
Author Information
1. Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea
- Publication Type:Special Article
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science
2023;38(23):e195-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration.
Methods:The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations.
Results:An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3–4 months.
Conclusion:We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media.Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.
