Skip to main content
Print this sectionPrint this section

the Prevention and Management of Iron Deficiency and Iron Deficiency Anemia in Infants, Children and Adolescents

- Methods

➡️Methods of search:

A comprehensive search for guidelines was undertaken to identify the most relevant guidelines to consider for adaptation. Keywords used for search are: Anemia, Iron-deficiency, Iron-deficiency anemia, Pediatrics.

Inclusion / exclusion criteria followed in the search and retrieval of guidelines to be adapted:

• Selecting only evidence-based guidelines (guideline must include a report on methodology of development including the systematic literature searches and explicit links between individual recommendations and their supporting evidence)

• Selecting national and/or international guidelines

• Specific range of dates for publication (using Guidelines published or updated 2013 and later or the last 5 years)

• Selecting peer-reviewed publications only

• Selecting guidelines written in English language

• Excluding guidelines written by a single author

The following three categories of databases and websites were searched:

1.  CPG databases and libraries (e.g., GIN, ECRI, SIGN, DynaMed, BIGG-REC PAHO)

2. Bibliographic databases (e.g., PubMed, Google Scholar)

3.  Specialized professional societies (related to the pediatric subspecialty)

All retrieved Guidelines were screened and appraised using AGREE II instrument (www.agreetrust.org) by at least two members. The panel decided a cut-off point or rank the guidelines (any guideline scoring above 60% on the rigor dimension was retained)

After reviewing all the previous criteria the GDG/ GAG recommended using 3 guidelines:

1.  WHO Guideline: Daily iron supplementation in adult women and adolescent girls. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.

2.  Guideline: Daily iron supplementation in infants and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.

3.  Patient Blood Management Guidelines: Module 6 – Neonatal and Paediatrics, National Blood Authority (NBA) (2016)

We did Adolopment for these guidelines: (Adoption, Adaptation, and Development)

         -  Adoption for most of the guideline recommendations.

         -  Development of Good Practice Statement

 

Contributors to the guideline development process:

Guideline Development Group (GDG)/ Guideline Adaptation Group (GAG):

The GDG/ GAG included two subgroups; the clinicians/ healthcare providers subgroup and the guideline methodologists’ subgroup.

➡️Clinicians Subgroups

The clinicians’ subgroup or clinical panel for this guideline included experts with a range of knowledge, technical skills and diverse perspectives in the field of Hematology and Nutrition.

The main functions of the clinical panel were adolopment of selected WHO and NBA Guidelines, determining the scope of the guideline and guideline, reviewing the evidence, and formulating evidence-informed recommendations in case of changing strength of recommendations.

➡️Guideline Methodologists Subgroup

There were 7 guideline methodologists with expertise in guidelines development, adaptation, GRADE and translation of evidence into recommendations. Methodologists provided orientation and overview of evidence-informed guideline development processes using the GRADE approach, guideline adaptation using the Adapted ADAPTE, provided AGREE II assessment of the source guidelines in collaboration with the clinicians subgroup, generation of the EtD frameworks whenever applicable.

➡️External Review Group:

The External Review Group for this guideline comprises 3 clinical national experts who have interest and expertise in as well as an eminent international reviewer.

They were identified by Egyptian Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee (EPG) as people who can provide valuable insights during the guideline development process.

The External Review Group was asked to comment on (peer review) the final guideline to identify any criticism on the content and to comment on clarity and applicability as well as issues relating to implementation, dissemination, ethics, regulations, or monitoring, but not to change the recommendations formulated by the GDG/ GAG. The members of the External Review Group were required to submit declarations of interest before the peer review process.

➡️Guideline Development/ Adaptation Group meetings:

GDG/ GAG meetings were organized virtually (weekly/bimonthly). Due to the extensive scope of

the guideline, EPG was responsible for overseeing the adolopment process. the timetable and objectives of each meeting. GDG/ GAG meetings were also attended by members of the methodologists. Working rules for each contributor type were outlined by the chair at the start of each meeting, covering aspects such as vocal rights, voting, and evidence to decision and recommendation formulating processes.

➡️Declarations of interests:

Prospective members of the GDG/ GAG were asked to fill in and sign the standard WHO declaration of interest and confidentiality undertaking forms. All guideline members and methodologists were also asked to fill in and sign the standard WHO declaration-of-interests.

Members of the external review group will be asked to fill in and sign the standard WHO declaration-of-interests form before the peer review process. 

➡️Evidence for the guideline:

We used the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for assigning the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations that includes the following definitions. 

Description of the interpretation of the GRADE four levels of certainty of evidence:

Table 1. Classification of the Quality of Evidence

High 

We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate

We are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

Low                

Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Very Low           

We have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

 

Table 2. Classification of the Strengths of Recommendations

Strong  

The desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh the undesirable effects (or vice versa), so most patients should receive the recommended course of action.

Conditional

There is uncertainty about the trade-offs. The clinician and patient need to discuss the patient's values and preferences, and the decision should be individualized.

 

➡️Developing good practice statements:

The GDG/ GAG also developed good practice statements for this guideline, which are actionable messages relevant to the guideline questions. The justification for each good practice statement was carefully considered by the GDG/ GAG with an emphasis that they are clearly needed. Good practice statements were developed, guided by the following GRADE criteria:

1- Message is really necessary with regard to actual healthcare practice

2- Have large net positive consequence (relevant outcomes and downstream consequences) (GRADE EtD domains)

3- Collecting and summarizing the evidence is a poor use of time and resources

4- Include a well-documented, clear rationale connecting indirect evidence

5- Are clear and actionable statements.

The GDG/ GAG collectively drafted and finalized good practice statements with relevant justifications and remarks to help with their interpretation, with close support and input from the consultant and guideline methodologists.

 

We have used the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) extension for adapted guidelines (RIGHT-Ad@pt Tool) as a reporting checklist for this guideline adaptation process as recommended by the EQUATOR network.