Prodigy topics are fully reviewed and updated at least every 5 years when they are re-scoped, new evidence identified, the best available evidence selected, recommendations and background information are reviewed and updated if required. The updated topic is quality assured by an internal and external review process, and finally published on the Prodigy website.
We have a continuous Horizon scanning process which monitors current evidence which may trigger a minor update of the topic or the evidence will be added to the Annual Knowledge Update section for consideration at the next full review of the topic. This ensures the topics are up to date and evidence published since the last review is available.
The following principles are core to our topic development;
- Using evidence based clinical information,
- Linking the recommendations to the evidence
- Supporting best practice
- Creating clear, concise, practical recommendations
- Guaranteeing independent review
The processes used to develop and review topics is detailed in the Quality Manual but includes the following high level processes;
- Topic development and selection
- Developing clinical questions and scenarios
- Literature searching
- Evaluating and summarising the evidence
- Developing clinical recommendations
- External consultation
The best available evidence is selected to formulate recommendations and provide accurate background information (for example, on incidence and prevalence). The team are appropriately skilled to reliably assess the evidence identified by the structured literature review so that the recommendations can be formulated from the best available evidence and the limitations of the evidence base are appreciated.
- Guidelines are assessed for quality by the clinical authors using the principles outlined by the AGREE II.
- Where high quality guidance is not available, we use the best available evidence which is:
- Dependent upon the type of clinical question being answered.
- Have outcomes that are clinically relevant and patient-centred rather than disease-centred.
- Has the lowest risk of bias.
- Is generalizable to the scenario/clinical question being answered.