Background: Methodological challenges have been continuously documented in guideline adaptation processes. To ensure rigor and transparency, standardized tools based on methodological principles in the guideline adaptation are needed.
Objective: To develop a guideline adaptation extension to the Guideline International Network (GIN)‐McMaster guidelines development checklist (GDC) - GDC adaptation extension.
Methods: This project follows multiphase iterative approach, including (1) identifying key methodological principles for guideline adaptation based on a scoping review, (2) proposing initial version of the methodological principles and GDC‐adaptation extension items; (3) iteratively refinement through working group discussions, and several rounds of Delphi consensus surveys and (4) Public consultation, user testing and finalization. Finally, we will submit the final outputs to the GIN board and seek final approval.
Results: We proposed the initial version of the methodological principles and GDC adaptation extension based on the scoping review, working group member’s experience, and inputs from workshop in GIN 2024. We generated 8 methodological principles and formed the 32 GDC adaptation extension items (modifying 19 items and adding 14 new items to the original GIN McMaster GDC). We will further conduct two working group meetings for optimization from March to July 2025 and report the latest version in the GIN 2025 conference.
Discussion for scientific abstracts: The methodological principles and the GIN‐McMaster GDC extension for guideline adaptation will provide clarity in the planning and execution of adaptation, adoption, and/or development of recommendations, ultimately improving efficiency and reducing research waste in guideline development while maintaining rigor and transparency.

Background: Integrating evidence on prognosis, diagnostic accuracy, and intervention effects via a modeling approach may be required whenever guideline questions are particularly broad or direct data are unavailable. However, a rigorous and structured linkage of these evidence bodies remains a major methodological challenge.

Objective: To develop a structured GRADE conceptual framework and decision-aid tool for integrating prognostic-diagnostic evidence to health consequences via modeling, assisting guideline panels to choose optimal model structure and parameters.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and key guideline repositories to identify guidelines using modeling to link evidence on prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment effects. The retrieved case-examples guided iterative discussions with experts in modeling, guidelines and systematic reviews development to refine the conceptual framework.

Results: Of 270 screened records, two met the eligibility criteria and served as case-studies.
We conceptualized a framework to link evidence on prognosis, diagnostic accuracy, and intervention effects, with prognosis informing pre-test probabilities of disease. We outlined three strategies to derive prognostic model parameters: (i) evidence from clinical prediction models, (ii) systematic reviews of prognostic factors, and (iii) predefined risk categories based on qualitative assumptions. Additionally, we developed a decision-aid to guide panels on pre-modeling considerations and sequential steps for parameters selection and model building. Finally, we proposed two approaches for linking diagnostic evidence to health consequences: using diagnostic accuracy categories or calculating post-test probabilities to predict downstream effects.

Discussion: This structured framework provides guideline developers with an actionable and adaptable blueprint for modeling integration of different evidence bodies.

Background: Guidelines shape clinical, public health practice, or health system decision-making. Trustworthy guidelines are systematically developed documents that include actionable statements based on evidence and a formal, structured, and transparent decision process. The Guidelines International Network (GIN)-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC) is a standard tool for considering 18 topics across guideline development, from planning to updating. We have developed an extension for engaging with various ‘interest-holders’ including patients, health care providers, payers of research, purchasers of health services, program managers, policymakers, principal investigators and researchers, publishers and peer review editors, product makers, and the public.

Objective: To present the methods used and challenges encountered during the development of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for Engagement.
Methods: Our project team included co-leads representing each of our identified interest holder groups. We conducted a series of reviews assessing engagement in guidelines, including methods of engagement, barriers and facilitators, impacts, and managing conflicts of interest. Using the results of the reviews, we conducted an international survey and key informant interviews to develop draft guidance that was finalized through consensus with the MuSE team.

Results: We used the results of each phase described in the methods to develop guidance for engaging with each of our 10 identified groups throughout all 18 topics of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist.

Discussion: We will present challenges and facilitators that were utilized both to inform the consensus process and the guidance itself.

Background: Better engagement of diverse groups of interest-holders in the development of health guidelines has been proposed to improve their usefulness, implementability, and acceptability.

Objectives: We developed the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist Extension for Engagement to assist guideline developers with engaging multiple interest-holders throughout all 18 topics in the checklist.

Methods: To produce this checklist extension, we conducted a three-phase mixed methods study. First, we categorized 10 groups of interest-holders (described in previous work) to be engaged in health guideline development: patients, the public, providers, program managers, principal investigators, payers/purchasers of health services, payers/funders of health research, policymakers, peer-reviewed journal editors, and product makers. We recruited project co-leads to represent each of these groups. We conducted a series of reviews to identify existing methods and barriers/facilitators for engagement, approaches to managing conflicts of interest, and describing the impacts of engagement on the guideline development process. The results of these reviews informed the development of an online survey, and survey results were clarified through key informant interviews. Consensus methods were used to finalize the guidance.

Future prospects for project presentation: A guidance checklist for engaging with interest-holders in guideline development will be presented.