Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:30:18 +08:00
commit 74bee324ab
335 changed files with 147377 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/clinical-decision-support/assets/recommendation_strength_guide.md
+++ b/skills/clinical-decision-support/assets/recommendation_strength_guide.md
@@ -0,0 +1,328 @@
+# Recommendation Strength Guide
+
+## GRADE Framework for Clinical Recommendations
+
+### Components of a Recommendation
+
+Every clinical recommendation should address:
+
+1. **Population**: Who should receive the intervention?
+2. **Intervention**: What specific treatment/action?
+3. **Comparator**: Compared to what alternative?
+4. **Outcome**: What are the expected results?
+5. **Strength**: How strong is the recommendation?
+6. **Quality of Evidence**: How confident are we in the evidence?
+
+### Recommendation Strength (Grade 1 vs Grade 2)
+
+#### Strong Recommendation (Grade 1)
+
+**When to Use**:
+- Desirable effects clearly outweigh undesirable effects (or vice versa)
+- High or moderate quality evidence
+- Values and preferences: Little variability expected
+- Resource implications: Cost-effective or cost considerations minor
+
+**Wording**: "We recommend..." or "Clinicians should..."
+
+**Implications**:
+- Most patients should receive the recommended intervention
+- Adherence to recommendation could be a quality indicator
+- Policy-makers can adapt as performance measure
+
+**Examples**:
+
+```
+STRONG RECOMMENDATION FOR (Grade 1):
+
+"We recommend osimertinib 80 mg daily as first-line therapy for adults with 
+advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation (Strong 
+recommendation, High-quality evidence - GRADE 1A)."
+
+Rationale:
+- Large PFS benefit: 18.9 vs 10.2 months (HR 0.46, p<0.001)
+- OS benefit: 38.6 vs 31.8 months (HR 0.80, p=0.046)  
+- Better tolerability: Lower grade 3-4 AEs
+- Evidence: High-quality (large RCT, low risk of bias)
+- Benefits clearly outweigh harms
+```
+
+```
+STRONG RECOMMENDATION AGAINST (Grade 1):
+
+"We recommend against using bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of newly 
+diagnosed glioblastoma to improve overall survival (Strong recommendation against, 
+High-quality evidence - GRADE 1A)."
+
+Rationale:
+- No OS benefit: HR 0.88 (0.76-1.02), p=0.10 (AVAglio trial)
+- Toxicity: Increased grade ≥3 AEs (66% vs 52%)
+- Evidence: High-quality (two large phase 3 RCTs)
+- Harms outweigh lack of survival benefit
+```
+
+#### Conditional/Weak Recommendation (Grade 2)
+
+**When to Use**:
+- Desirable and undesirable effects closely balanced
+- Low or very low quality evidence
+- Values and preferences: Substantial variability
+- Resource implications: High cost or limited access
+
+**Wording**: "We suggest..." or "Clinicians might..."
+
+**Implications**:
+- Different choices will be appropriate for different patients
+- Shared decision-making essential
+- Policy-making requires substantial debate and stakeholder involvement
+
+**Examples**:
+
+```
+CONDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION FOR (Grade 2):
+
+"We suggest considering maintenance pemetrexed after first-line platinum-pemetrexed 
+chemotherapy for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in patients without disease progression 
+(Conditional recommendation, Moderate-quality evidence - GRADE 2B)."
+
+Rationale:
+- Modest PFS benefit: 4.0 vs 2.0 months (HR 0.62)
+- No OS benefit: 13.9 vs 11.0 months (HR 0.79, p=0.23)
+- Toxicity: Continued chemotherapy burden
+- Quality of life: Trade-off between symptom control and treatment side effects
+- Patient values: Some prioritize time off treatment, others prioritize disease control
+- Shared decision-making essential
+```
+
+```
+CONDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION - EITHER OPTION ACCEPTABLE (Grade 2):
+
+"We suggest either pembrolizumab monotherapy OR pembrolizumab plus platinum-doublet 
+chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC, based on patient 
+preferences and clinical factors (Conditional recommendation, High-quality evidence - 
+GRADE 2A)."
+
+Rationale:
+- Both regimens NCCN Category 1 preferred
+- Monotherapy: Less toxicity, oral vs IV, better quality of life
+- Combination: Higher ORR (48% vs 39%), numerically longer PFS
+- OS: Similar between strategies
+- Patient values: Varies widely (tolerability vs response rate priority)
+```
+
+### Evidence Quality (⊕⊕⊕⊕ to ⊕○○○)
+
+#### High Quality (⊕⊕⊕⊕)
+
+- Further research very unlikely to change confidence in effect estimate
+- Consistent results from well-designed RCTs
+- No serious limitations
+- Direct evidence (target population, intervention, outcomes)
+- Precise estimate (narrow CI)
+
+**Example**: FLAURA trial for osimertinib in EGFR+ NSCLC - Large RCT, consistent results, low risk of bias, direct outcomes
+
+#### Moderate Quality (⊕⊕⊕○)
+
+- Further research likely to impact confidence and may change estimate
+- RCTs with some limitations OR very strong evidence from observational studies
+- Some inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, or publication bias
+
+**Example**: Single RCT with some limitations, or multiple RCTs with moderate heterogeneity
+
+#### Low Quality (⊕⊕○○)
+
+- Further research very likely to have important impact on confidence in estimate
+- Observational studies OR RCTs with serious limitations
+- Serious issues with consistency, directness, precision, or bias
+
+**Example**: Well-conducted cohort study, or RCT with high attrition and unclear allocation concealment
+
+#### Very Low Quality (⊕○○○)
+
+- Estimate of effect very uncertain
+- Case series, expert opinion, mechanistic reasoning
+- Very serious limitations
+
+**Example**: Retrospective case series, expert consensus without systematic review
+
+## Combining Strength and Quality
+
+### All Nine Possible Combinations
+
+| Evidence Quality | Strong For (↑↑) | Weak For (↑) | Strong Against (↓↓) | Weak Against (↓) |
+|-----------------|----------------|--------------|---------------------|------------------|
+| **High (⊕⊕⊕⊕)** | Grade 1A | Grade 2A | Grade 1A (against) | Grade 2A (against) |
+| **Moderate (⊕⊕⊕○)** | Grade 1B | Grade 2B | Grade 1B (against) | Grade 2B (against) |
+| **Low (⊕⊕○○)** | Grade 1C* | Grade 2C | Grade 1C (against)* | Grade 2C (against) |
+| **Very Low (⊕○○○)** | Grade 1D* | Grade 2D | Grade 1D (against)* | Grade 2D (against) |
+
+*Rare: Strong recommendations usually require at least moderate-quality evidence
+
+### Unusual Combinations (When They Occur)
+
+**Strong Recommendation with Low Quality Evidence (Grade 1C)**
+
+Rare, but can occur when:
+- Large magnitude of effect from observational data (RR >5 or <0.2)
+- Low quality evidence, but clear benefit-harm balance
+- Example: Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (before RCTs, strong observational data)
+
+**Weak Recommendation with High Quality Evidence (Grade 2A)**
+
+Occurs when:
+- Benefits and harms closely balanced
+- Patient values highly variable
+- Example: Aspirin for primary prevention in low-risk individuals (benefits small, bleeding risk present, patient values vary)
+
+## Wording Templates
+
+### Strong Recommendations
+
+**FOR (↑↑)**:
+- "We recommend [intervention] for [population]."
+- "Clinicians should [action]."
+- "[Intervention] is recommended."
+
+**AGAINST (↓↓)**:
+- "We recommend against [intervention] for [population]."
+- "Clinicians should not [action]."
+- "[Intervention] is not recommended."
+
+### Conditional/Weak Recommendations
+
+**FOR (↑)**:
+- "We suggest [intervention] for [population]."
+- "Clinicians might consider [action]."
+- "[Intervention] may be considered for selected patients."
+
+**AGAINST (↓)**:
+- "We suggest not using [intervention] for [population]."
+- "Clinicians might avoid [action]."
+- "[Intervention] is generally not recommended."
+
+**EITHER ACCEPTABLE**:
+- "We suggest either [option A] or [option B] based on patient preferences."
+- "Either approach is reasonable."
+
+## Color Coding for Visual Documents
+
+**Strong Recommendations (Green Background)**:
+- RGB(0, 153, 76) or #009954
+- Clear visual priority
+- Use for Grade 1A, 1B
+
+**Conditional Recommendations (Yellow Background)**:
+- RGB(255, 193, 7) or #FFC107
+- Indicates discussion needed
+- Use for Grade 2A, 2B, 2C
+
+**Research/Investigational (Blue Background)**:
+- RGB(33, 150, 243) or #2196F3
+- Clinical trial consideration
+- Insufficient evidence for standard care
+
+**Not Recommended (Red Border/Background)**:
+- RGB(220, 20, 60) or #DC143C
+- Strong recommendation against
+- Evidence of harm or no benefit
+
+## Common Scenarios
+
+### Scenario 1: Strong Evidence, Clear Benefit-Harm Balance
+
+**Example**: Pembrolizumab for PD-L1 ≥50% NSCLC
+
+- Evidence: Large phase 3 RCT (KEYNOTE-024), n=305, well-designed
+- Results: PFS HR 0.50 (0.37-0.68), OS HR 0.60 (0.41-0.89)
+- Toxicity: Lower grade 3-5 AEs than chemotherapy (27% vs 53%)
+- Patient values: Most prioritize efficacy and tolerability
+
+**Recommendation**: STRONG FOR (Grade 1A)
+
+### Scenario 2: Moderate Evidence, Balanced Trade-Offs
+
+**Example**: Adjuvant immunotherapy for resected melanoma
+
+- Evidence: RCT showing relapse-free survival benefit, OS data immature
+- Results: Recurrence risk reduced but ongoing toxicity
+- Toxicity: Immune-related AEs requiring steroids (some severe)
+- Cost: High annual cost for 12 months treatment
+- Patient values: Variable (some prioritize recurrence prevention, others avoid toxicity)
+
+**Recommendation**: CONDITIONAL FOR (Grade 2B)
+
+### Scenario 3: Low Evidence, but Severe Consequence
+
+**Example**: Anticoagulation for prosthetic heart valve
+
+- Evidence: No RCTs (would be unethical), observational data and mechanistic reasoning
+- Consequence: Very high thromboembolic risk without anticoagulation
+- Benefit-harm: Clear despite low quality evidence
+
+**Recommendation**: STRONG FOR (Grade 1C)
+
+### Scenario 4: High Evidence, but Patient Preferences Vary
+
+**Example**: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy
+
+- Evidence: High-quality data on outcomes and satisfaction
+- Trade-offs: Cosmetic benefit vs additional surgery, recovery time
+- Values: Highly personal decision, wide preference variability
+
+**Recommendation**: CONDITIONAL (Grade 2A) - discuss options, patient decides
+
+## Documentation Template
+
+```
+RECOMMENDATION: [State recommendation clearly]
+
+Strength: [STRONG / CONDITIONAL]
+Quality of Evidence: [HIGH / MODERATE / LOW / VERY LOW]
+GRADE: [1A / 1B / 2A / 2B / 2C]
+
+Evidence Summary:
+- Primary study: [Citation]
+- Design: [RCT / Observational / Meta-analysis]
+- Sample size: n = [X]
+- Results: [Primary outcome with effect size, CI, p-value]
+- Quality assessment: [Strengths and limitations]
+
+Benefits:
+- [Quantified benefit 1]
+- [Quantified benefit 2]
+
+Harms:
+- [Quantified harm 1]
+- [Quantified harm 2]
+
+Balance: [Benefits clearly outweigh harms / Close balance requiring discussion / etc.]
+
+Values and Preferences: [Little variability / Substantial variability]
+
+Cost Considerations: [If relevant]
+
+Guideline Concordance:
+- NCCN: [Category and recommendation]
+- ASCO: [Recommendation]
+- ESMO: [Grade and recommendation]
+```
+
+## Quality Checklist
+
+Before finalizing recommendations, verify:
+
+- [ ] Recommendation statement is clear and actionable
+- [ ] Strength is explicitly stated (strong vs conditional)
+- [ ] Quality of evidence is graded (high/moderate/low/very low)
+- [ ] GRADE notation provided (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C)
+- [ ] Evidence is cited with specific study results
+- [ ] Benefits are quantified (effect sizes with CIs)
+- [ ] Harms are quantified (AE rates)
+- [ ] Balance of benefits/harms is explained
+- [ ] Patient values consideration is addressed (if conditional)
+- [ ] Alternative options are mentioned
+- [ ] Guideline concordance is documented
+- [ ] Special populations are addressed (elderly, renal/hepatic impairment)
+- [ ] Monitoring requirements are specified
+