Table 1.

Steps followed in the production of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) guidelines.

1. The chair of CVT guidelines (JMF) was appointed by the ESO guidelines committee.

2. The chair invited the other members of the guideline panel, using the following criteria:

a. Senior members with previous scientific and clinical expertise with CVT and peer recognition as CVT experts;

b. Balanced geographical distribution;

c. Including specialities other than neurology;

3. Senior members were encouraged to invite and involve a junior colleague.

4. All panel members filed a declaration of conflicts of interest form.

5. Relevant topics, both from a patient and a health care professional perspective, where scientific evidence could be available, were selected.

6. Topics were grouped in diagnostic and therapeutic.

7. Members of the panel were appointed specific topics.

8. A list of outcomes was produced and approved.

9. The importance of the different outcomes was rated by each member of the panel.

10. A final grading of the outcomes was calculated from individual votes and approved.

11. Patients, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions for each topic were formulated, discussed and approved.

12. Search terms and strategies were designed for the different PICO questions.

13. Searching, selection and extraction of information was performed by at least two members of the panel, disagreements being solved by consensus.

14. Evaluation of the quality of scientific evidence followed the GRADE method.

15. For each PICO question, quality of evidence was classified as very low, low, moderate or high.

16. Based on the quality of evidence, recommendations for each PICO question were written.

17. The strength of the recommendations was rated, based on the quality of evidence, as uncertain, weak or strong.

18. Following the GRADE methodology, strength of recommendations for a few PICO questions could be upgraded or downgraded.

19. The grading of evidence, strength of recommendation and statement of the recommendations were discussed among panel members by e-mail, telephone and occasional informal face-to-face meetings.

20. The final text of the guidelines was discussed in a teleconference.

21. Each PICO question was voted for approval.

22. Members with intellectual conflicts of interest, such as being author/principal investigator of a randomised controlled trial, did not participate in the vote of the corresponding recommendation.

23. The draft of the guidelines text was circulated for final editing.

24. The final text of the guidelines was approved by all panel members.

ESO: European Stroke Organization; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.