Practice guidelines (PGs) are systematically developed statements intended to assist in patient and practitioner decisions. The AGREE II is the revised tool for PG development, reporting, and evaluation, comprised of 23 items, two global rating scores, and a new User's Manual. In this study, we sought to develop, execute, and evaluate the impact of two internet interventions designed to accelerate the capacity of stakeholders to use the AGREE II.

Realist reviews offer a rigorous method to analyze heterogeneous data emerging from multiple disciplines as a means to develop new concepts, understand the relationships between them, and identify the evidentiary base underpinning them. However, emerging synthesis methods such as the Realist Review are not well operationalized and may be difficult for the novice researcher to grasp. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of an analytic process to organize and synthesize data from a realist review.

Background: The role of denosumab in patients with resectable giant cell tumour of bone remains unclear. We asked the following research question: for patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with resectable giant cell tumour of bone, what are the benefits and harms of denosumab compared with no denosumab in terms of (1) facilitation of surgery (operative time, blood loss), (2) disease recurrence, (3) pain control, (4) disease stability, and (5) adverse effects (e.g., malignant transformation, osteonecrosis of jaw, atypical femur fracture)? One previous systematic review addressed only one outcome—disease recurrence. Therefore, we undertook this new systematic review to address the above five outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched on June 30, 2020. Results: This systematic review included one previous systematic review and five comparative studies. Due to poor quality, non-randomized studies fraught with selection bias, it is difficult to determine if a significant difference exists in the outcomes for surgical giant cell tumour of bone with perioperative denosumab. There were no reported cases of adverse effects from denosumab. Conclusion: To date, there is insufficient evidence to understand the value of denosumab in the perioperative setting in patients with giant cell tumour of bone.

(1) Background: To make recommendations on the most effective therapy options for Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast (DCIS) patients; (2) Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO databases, and main relevant guideline websites were searched. Draft versions of the guideline went through formal internal and external reviews, with a final approval by the Program in Evidence Based Care and the DCIS Expert Panel. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was followed; (3) Results: Based on the current evidence from the systematic review and this guideline authors’ clinical opinions, initial draft recommendations were developed to improve the management of patients with DCIS. After a comprehensive internal and external review process, ten recommendations and 27 qualifying statements were eventually made. This guideline includes recommendations for the primary treatment of DCIS with surgical treatment and/or radiation therapy and the management of DCIS after primary treatment for patients with DCIS, including DCIS with microinvasion (<1 mm through the duct); (4) Conclusions: The current guideline was created after a systematic review and a comprehensive internal and external review process. We believe this guideline provides valuable insights that will be useful in clinical decision making for health providers.