Background Lung ultrasound (LUS) and computed tomography (CT) can both be used for diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the agreement between LUS and CT is unknown. Purpose to compare the agreement of LUS and CT in the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19. Materials and Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Chinese Biomedicine Literature, and WHO COVID-19 databases to identify studies that compared LUS with CT in the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19. We calculated the pooled overall, positive and negative percent agreements, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the standard receiver operating curve (SROC) for LUS in the diagnosis of COVID-19 compared with CT. Results We identified 1896 records, of which nine studies involving 531 patients were finally included. The pooled overall, positive and negative percentage agreements of LUS for the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19 compared with CT were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 43–99%), 96% (95% CI, 80–99%, I² = 92.15%) and 80% (95%CI, 60–92%, I² = 92.85%), respectively. DOR was 37.41 (95% CI, 9.43–148.49, I² = 63.9%), and the area under the SROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92–0.96). The quality of evidence for both specificity and sensitivity was low because of heterogeneity and risk of bias. Conclusion The level of diagnostic agreement between LUS and CT in the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19 is high. LUS can be therefore considered as an equally accurate alternative for CT in situations where molecular tests are not available.

Objective: This study aims to better understand the current practice of clinical guideline adaptation and identify challenges raised in this process, given that published adapted clinical guidelines are generally of low quality, poorly reported and not based on published frameworks. Design: A qualitative study based on semistructured interviews. We conducted a framework analysis for the adaptation process, and thematic analysis for participants’ views and experiences about adaptation process. Setting: Nine guideline development organisations from seven countries. Participants: Guideline developers who have adapted clinical guidelines within the last 3 years. We identified potential participants through published adapted clinical guidelines, recommendations from experts, and a review of the Guideline International Network Conference attendees’ list. Results: We conducted ten interviews and identified nine adaptation methodologies. The reasons for adapting clinical guidelines include developing de novo clinical guidelines, implementing source clinical guidelines, and harmonising and updating existing clinical guidelines. We identified the following core steps of the adaptation process (1) selection of scope and source guideline(s), (2) assessment of source materials (guidelines, recommendations and evidence level), (3) decision-making process and (4) external review and follow-up process. Challenges on the adaptation of clinical guidelines include limitations from source clinical guidelines (poor quality or reporting), limitations from adaptation settings (lacking resources or skills), adaptation process intensity and complexity, and implementation barriers. We also described how participants address the complexities and implementation issues of the adaptation process. Conclusions: Adaptation processes have been increasingly used to develop clinical guidelines, with the emergence of different purposes. The identification of core steps and assessment levels could help guideline adaptation developers streamline their processes. More methodological research is needed to develop rigorous international standards for adapting clinical guidelines.

Background: To ensure rigour and transparency in guideline adaptation and contextualization processes, standardized tools and methodological principles are needed. However, methodological challenges have been continuously documented in guideline adaptation processes.Objective: To develop a guideline international network (GIN)‐McMaster guidelines development checklist (GDC) extension for guideline adaptation.Methods: This project follows multiphase iterative approach, including (1) compiling a list of key methodological steps for guideline adaptation, based on scoping reviews of the current knowledge of guideline adaptation; (2) proposing methodological principles for guideline adaptation based on key methodological steps, in parallel to developing the GIN‐McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for adaptation (GDC‐adaptation extension) concerning the original checklist and methodological steps for adaptation; (3) iteratively refining the methodological steps through GIN Adaptation working group discussions, and GDC‐adaptation extension items through several rounds of Delphi consensus survey and (4) Public consultation and finalization. For methodological principles, this involves public consultation; for GDC‐adaptation extension, we will conduct user testing through semi‐structured interviews. Finally, we will submit the final outputs to the GIN board and seek final approval.Discussion: The identification of the key methodological principles, together with the GIN‐McMaster GDC extension for guideline adaptation and contextualization, will provide clarity in the planning and execution of adaptation, adoption and/or development of recommendations. The aim of the checklist is to improve efficiency and reduce research waste in guideline development while maintaining rigour and transparency.

Background: Evidence-informed public health decision-making (EIDM) is a complex process that must consider multiple factors. Aim: We aimed to identify and describe existing frameworks supporting evidence-informed public health decision-making and their application to infectious disease. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to describe current EIDM framework use in public health. We included decision-making frameworks in public health and examples of their use in infectious diseases. We searched MEDLINE and Health Systems Evidence from inception to December 2022. We also hand searched websites of relevant organisations and conducted a forward citation search of the included frameworks. Two reviewers selected studies independently, one reviewer extracted data and one cross-checked for accuracy. We presented the results narratively. Results: We included 15 frameworks. Seven had a generic scope and eight were focused on specific topics (immunisation, COVID-19 or other, non-infectious diseases). From the included frameworks, we identified a total of 18 criteria with each framework assessing a median of eight, the most frequent being ‘desirable effects’, ‘resources considerations’ and ‘feasibility’. We identified infectious disease examples for four frameworks: ‘Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation’ (GRADE), WHO-INTEGRATe Evidence (WHO-INTEGRATE), ‘Ethics, Equity, Feasibility, and Acceptability’ (EEFA) and ‘Community Preventive Services Task Force’ (CPSTF) evidence-to-decision frameworks. Conclusion: Although several EIDM frameworks exist for public health decision-making, most have not been widely applied to infectious diseases. Current EIDM frameworks inconsistently address factors for public health decision-making. Further application and evaluation, and possibly adaptation of existing frameworks, is required to optimise decision-making in public health and infectious diseases.