CHOOSE YOUR SITUATION

Back to customer servicesProfessional societies and guideline working groups

A guideline question needs updating. First assemble the changed evidence.

A suitable baseline review exists and recommendation discussions are approaching.

How does this scope address your concerns?

You want to avoid turning a study conclusion directly into a recommendation or paying for a predetermined recommendation.

When this scope fits

A suitable baseline review authorized for reuse, 2 related PICO questions and clear working-group responsibilities.

When the scope needs adjusting

A new large systematic review, society endorsement, formal publication or a guaranteed recommendation direction.

REAL SOURCES · ILLUSTRATIVE REQUEST · DOWNLOADABLE SAMPLE

Update two PICOs; separate evidence tables from recommendations

Download sample packZIP

Update checks for two questions

01PICO 1: support assessment

Check definitions, population and critical outcomes

02PICO 2: discharge transitions

Check components, care context and harms

03Recommendation discussion

Separate evidence from values, resources and implementation views

Fictional PICOs. No new recommendation or certainty rating is generated; baseline suitability is assessed before commissioning.

Check	Finding / sample content	Use
Baseline reuse	An old review is not automatically reusable	Check scope, quality and permissions
Supplementary search	Start from explicit dates and two PICOs	Deliver new studies and evidence tables
Committee view	Payment cannot fix recommendation direction	Keep views distinct from evidence judgments

SOURCES USED IN THIS EXAMPLE

NICE · Updating guideline recommendations

Prepared 5 Oct 2026 · Selected references, not an exhaustive systematic search

Scope & acceptance

Work covered by the quote

Illustrative scope: 2 related PICO questions based on an existing, lawfully reusable and suitable baseline review, with supplementary searches and evidence tables. New large-scale screening requires a separate scope.

Pilot reference: CNY 30,000–80,000/PICO; a completely new systematic review is priced separately. Fictional 2-PICO update: CNY 60,000, paid as 18,000/24,000/18,000. If the baseline cannot be reused, work is re-estimated before proceeding.

Acceptance criteria

Evidence judgments, working-group views and final recommendations are separate records. Payment cannot predetermine recommendation direction.

Checking the evidence

Volumes come from the current proposed pilot scope. The budget and scenario are illustrative, not a completed client project or real transaction. A formal quote follows confirmation of scope, data permissions and personnel.
Inputs to confirm: current guideline title and version, PICO IDs, authorized baseline review and date, and previous search cutoff. New studies retain original source locations.

Workflow and inputs

From inputs to delivery

Explore the workflow and deliverable structure. This preview does not run searches, read real records or produce medical findings.

01 / WORKFLOW PREVIEW

Define the task

Confirm 2 PICO questions, the old review title and version, and its search cutoff.

Methods, sources and professional responsibilities

THE BASIS FOR THIS SCOPE

Why this approach? Inspect the basis.

Institutional decisions require effect evidence, resources, implementation conditions and local applicability.

OFFICIAL GUIDANCE

WHO Guidelines

World Health Organization

Inspect public-health and clinical guidance

Find WHO guidelines and review the recommendation questions, evidence base and intended settings.

Scope & access conditions

Global guidance is not evidence of local implementation outcomes. Check population, resources, policy and timing.

Open official source

PUBLIC DATABASE

Cochrane

Read systematic reviews and plain-language summaries

Explore a question’s research synthesis and the confidence researchers have in the findings.

Scope & access conditions

Plain-language summaries are public; full-review access varies. Applicability still depends on the population and question.

Open official source

METHOD REFERENCE

GRADE · Cochrane Handbook

Cochrane · Chapter 14

Show effect size and confidence separately

Present important outcomes, relative and absolute effects, available data and certainty, with reasons for downgrading.

Scope & access conditions

GRADE evaluates a body of evidence for a particular outcome. Database inclusion or one study does not automatically establish high certainty.

Open official source

These references support problem definition and evidence appraisal. Your conclusions still require project-specific sources and professional review.

The value of this commissionEOS can take one agreed-baseline question package so the panel spends time weighing recommendations.

Guideline PICO evidence packageCompare alternatives and value

Before recommendation discussion, each finding needs sources and certainty assessment.

What to assess	Cochrane Response	Evidence OS · Commissioned scope
Service focus	Cochrane Response supplies systematic evidence and guideline methods support.	EOS can take one agreed-baseline question package so the panel spends time weighing recommendations.
When to choose	A full service suits large de novo reviews and international methods support.	Example: two related PICOs, an update search, certainty tables and source locations; de novo screening is separate.

What the fee pays for: Planning reference: CNY 30,000–80,000 per PICO; reuse requires checking baseline quality, rights and cutoff.
Value beyond this task: Hand over evidence tables and source indexes for targeted later revision.
How to assess value: Assess locatable judgements, additional checks requested at meetings and secretariat preparation hours.

Methods review is required for certainty ratings; the authorised panel owns recommendations, conflicts and publication.

CHECK THE OFFICIAL SERVICE SCOPECochrane Response · Our evidence synthesis services

Reuse and updates after delivery

Questions, sources and discussion rationales create a traceable update baseline, with verified versions and triggers available for later surveillance.

Agree reuse rights, retention and export periods, and future update fees when scoping.

Questions before commissioning

Can expert views be treated as evidence findings?

No. Evidence judgments, working-group views and final recommendations are recorded separately.

What if the old review is unsuitable for reuse?

Screening and research workload are re-estimated for the group to approve a new budget. A new complete review is not forced into the original update price.

Can I buy this online now?

Email us your scoping request at no charge. We’ll reply as soon as possible to confirm scope and prepare a quote. Services, professionals, contracts and payment are confirmed separately. This form does not accept medical-record attachments or sensitive images.

Define the delivery for your actual question.

Add your goal, available inputs and timing. Agree scope, review responsibilities and a quote before commissioning.

Request scope & quote

Explore other situations

Professional societies and guideline working groups

The guideline is published. Which new evidence merits another discussion?

One quarterly memorandum listing new or corrected evidence, affected questions and trigger reasons. Substantive updates begin only after approval.

Surveillance: CNY 60,000–150,000 per year; substantive updates priced separatelySee the deliverable

Other tasks in this area

Coverage value and budget assessment Policy comparison and ongoing support