An explanation of PROSPECT methodology and Working Group processes can be found at the following link: http://esraeurope.org/prospect-methodology
For the rotator cuff repair surgery review, the Subgroup members were:
Marc Van de Velde5
Girish P. Joshi6
All included studies were assessed for quality according to Prospect methodology (Joshi 2019, http://esraeurope.org/prospect-methodology). The study quality assessments for rotator cuff repair surgery are summarised here: Quality assessments and level of evidence.
Recommendations for rotator cuff repair surgery were made according to PROSPECT methodology (Joshi 2019, http://esraeurope.org/prospect-methodology). This involved a grading of A–D according to the overall level of evidence, as determined by the quality of studies included, consistency of evidence and study design: Relationship between quality of the study and levels of evidence (LoE) and grades of recommendation.
The proposed recommendations were sent to the PROSPECT Working Group for review and comments and a modified Delphi approach was used. Once a consensus was achieved the lead authors drafted the final document, which was ultimately approved by the working group.
The limitations of this review are related to those of the included studies:
Future adequately powered studies should assess the effects of analgesic interventions not only on time to ambulation and length of hospital stay but also other patient-related outcome measures such as chronic pain and long-term opioid consumption.
The AGREE II instrument (Brouwers 2010) is used internationally to assess the methodological rigour and transparency of practice guidelines. As far as possible, the methodology of the PROSPECT Rotator Cuff Repair Surgery review meets the requirements of ‘Domain 3: Rigour of development’ of the AGREE II instrument: