Executive Summary of Standard Operating Procedures for Society for Vascular Medicine (SVM) publications

Introduction

The Research, Quality, and Publications (RQP) Committee of the Society for Vascular Medicine (SVM) is responsible for developing position statements, practice guidelines, and other documents. Furthermore, this committee is responsible for proposing and vetting proposals and implementing programs that foster research in vascular medicine and biology and for developing and maintaining programs around quality improvement in the vascular space.^1–3 This committee also reviews document endorsement requests from other professional societies and organizations.

In 2024, the RQP Committee updated the Society’s Manual of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for SVM Publications. This document was approved by the SVM Board of Trustees (BOT) on May 14, 2024, and the full SOP is available on the SVM website. ⁴ An Executive Summary is provided herein.

Types of SVM guidance documents

The Society produces and endorses position statements, practice guidelines, or other clinical documents as a service to its members and the field of vascular medicine. All SVM-sponsored documents are developed under the oversight of the RQP Committee and must be approved for initiation and publication by the BOT.

Topic identification and prioritization

Potential topics to include in SVM guidance documents are identified by the RQP Committee through periodic assessments. Methods utilized include environmental scanning with review of practice trends, new evidence, as well as considering input from stakeholders. The RQP Committee may also request topic suggestions via web-based surveys to other SVM committees and members, and at the annual SVM scientific sessions. Topics will be prioritized based on their alignment with the SVM strategic plan, topic relevance and timeliness, policy implications, and other SVM committee goals and priorities. Areas that address variations in clinical practice and inequalities in patient care will be considered.

The committee will review existing guidance from SVM as well as relevant guidelines and scientific statements from other societies to determine when revisions and focused updates are required. New documents should provide minimal overlap with already published documents.

Collaboration with other organizations

SVM may participate with other organizations in the development of documents. In the case that SVM is asked to collaborate on a document, SVM will follow mutually agreed upon policies and procedures outlined by the sponsor of that document. In either case (SVM-sponsored or non-SVM-sponsored document), the collaboration will be approved by the BOT as recommended by the RQP Committee.

Models of collaboration with other organizations include the following.

Partnership: All participating organizations are considered equal in all aspects of the development and dissemination of the document including copublication of the manuscript.

Endorsement: One organization sponsors the development and publication of the document but invites input and contribution from other organizations as writing committee members and official societal endorsement from SVM.

Affirmation of value: In this case, one (or more) organizations take the overall role in writing, peer reviewing, and final dissemination of the document; however, the document has relevance to another organization. Affirmation of value only necessitates the organizational approval of the final document. SVM may not necessarily have members in the writing committee for affirmation of value. Upon receipt of a request for affirmation of value, the Society will undertake a screening review of the document. Review by a designee from the Evidence-based Medicine Methodology team or Guidelines Subcommittee may be warranted if there are methodological questions. Additionally, the SVM leadership may seek input from members with topic expertise prior to initiating the review and approval process. The RQP Committee will review affirmation of value requests periodically.

Conflict of interest disclosure and management

Individual writing group members will remain in compliance with the existing SVM policies on disclosing conflicts of interest (COI). If a conflict cannot be adequately resolved consistent with the foregoing, then the member should withdraw from the relationship causing the COI or from the writing group. COI is defined and described by SVM as a situation where the interests of SVM, or those of an employee/member acting on behalf of SVM, could potentially appear to affect SVM’s independence in the decision-making of the design, conduct, reporting, review, recommendation, and/or oversight of SVM activities.

Panel formation

The RQP Committee of SVM is responsible for developing position statements, practice guidelines, and other clinical documents. This committee is responsible for proposing and vetting proposals and implementing programs that foster research in vascular medicine and biology and for developing and maintaining programs around quality improvement in the vascular space. Furthermore, the President (typically assisted by the President-Elect) will appoint committee leadership and membership with input from the committee considered in this process. Selected nominees will be invited to participate in specific writing groups after approval of the document from the SVM BOT. Upon completion of the appointment process, a specific meeting (in-person or online) is held to provide orientation and discussion on the roles and responsibilities of writing group members.

Methodology for document development

SVM sponsors several document types. The goal of these documents is to provide evidence-based, actionable recommendations to improve patient outcomes. A structured process will be utilized to ensure consistency in the collection, synthesis, and reporting of evidence regardless of topic and/or project.

The writing group, often with the help of other stakeholders, will identify important and relevant problems encountered by the vascular medicine community. Problems are then broken down into a PICO format: Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome. Position statements and expert consensus statements will be based on a comprehensive literature search performed by the writing group. To enable data synthesis and interpretation, a summary table will be constructed including the PICO question, the best evidence available to answer that question, and the quality of the evidence (high, moderate, low). When possible, writing groups will highlight questions/issues that would benefit from higher quality studies. If the writing group believes that there is insufficient evidence, then a recommendation may be deferred, with the reasons and knowledge gaps outlined in the discussion.

Formulating recommendations

The writing group will use one of the following processes to formulate recommendations, depending upon the type of document. Disclosure and management of COI per SVM policies will be an instrumental aspect of all group decision-making processes.

• Clinical Practice Guidelines Evidence-to-Decision Framework: When developing guidelines, recommendations will be assessed using a structured and clear process by the writing group to make judgements about the totality of the evidence. The writing group will consider: quality of the evidence (including research design, strength of the methodology, generalizability of the patient population studied); balance between benefits and risks of the intervention; the magnitude of benefit versus harm; patient values and preferences; feasibility and acceptability of the intervention; health equity; financial cost; and resource utilization.

• Position Statement, Expert Consensus, Appropriate Use, Performance Measures, and Data Elements: The writing group will use a modified Delphi method (structured method of developing consensus among panel members) to collect and reconcile judgements about the evidence and recommendations.

The writing group will engage in discussion, with the goal to achieve consensus agreement on all recommendations. When consensus cannot be reached, decisions will be made by majority vote.

Writing the manuscript

The document outline and list of writing group members must be submitted to the BOT for approval prior to initiation of document writing. When writing the manuscript, the PICO elements and specific question will be explicitly stated, followed by the direction of the recommendation (for or against the intervention), the strength of the recommendation (strong or conditional), and the degree of certainty with which the recommendation is being made (based on the overall level of scientific evidence). The writing group may opt to add figures and/or algorithms to further convey or clarify findings and recommendations.

Peer review and public comment

Peer review will be performed by independent clinicians and investigators. For reviewing the SVM document, at least three independent peer-reviewers will be selected by the SVM RQP Committee Chair, or a designee (hereafter referred to as the Document Editor, which is different from the Journal Editor). The document Editor of the document should not have a significant relationship with industry for the topic of the document under review. For documents in which SVM is a collaborator/contributor but not the primary source organization, these details will be coordinated with other partnering organizations. Depending on the nature of the document, the Document Editor must obtain input from a diverse group of expert independent peer-reviewers.

The Document Editor will coalesce the comments from independent reviewers and SVM RQP members (if any) and guidance will be shared with the document authors regarding issues that may need revision or clarification. The revised document, when deemed acceptable by the Document Editor, will be shared by the Chair of the SVM RQP with the SVM BOT.

Once the document is approved by the Board, it will undergo processing for publication according to standard SVM procedures, or in conjunction with other organizing professional societies. If the document is to be published in Vascular Medicine, the official journal of SVM, journal editorial policies will be followed.

Endorsement

SVM may seek to develop and publish official scientific statements or guidelines on topics of importance to its membership and to advance the mission of the Society. These documents may be generated following an invitation by other professional organizations to develop and/or co-publish the document. A representative of the writing committee of this document would typically present the document to the RQP Committee and possibly to the BOT for approval. Some documents may come directly to the BOT for approval.

Evaluation and maintenance

With the goal of maintaining high-quality academic publication in vascular medicine, conducting a thorough evaluation of Society documents is essential for maintaining quality and adherence to best practices. The documents should be assessed for clarity, completeness, and alignment with established standards. Regular updates should be made to incorporate any changes in the field and address identified gaps or deficiencies. ⁵

Evaluating the processes and policies involved in the publication workflow is crucial to ensure efficiency, transparency, and compliance with ethical guidelines. The assessment should focus on identifying potential bottlenecks, improving communication channels, and streamlining the workflow. Policies should be reviewed to ensure they align with industry standards and ethical guidelines.^6,7

Collecting external feedback regarding this standard operating procedure (SOP) and any other SVM-sponsored documents is an invaluable practice for enhancing the quality and relevance of academic publications in vascular medicine. External feedback can be gathered through surveys, focus groups, or interviews involving researchers, reviewers, and members of the scientific community at any time. Incorporating external feedback fosters collaboration and ensures that the publication process remains responsive to the needs and expectations of the scientific community. ³

Document updates

Documents that are sponsored by SVM are required to specify the date when the literature search and evidence evaluation were conducted. Documents will be considered current through 5 years since the publication. Prior to that time, the RQP Committee may initiate an updated literature search for SVM-sponsored documents. This search could be conducted by some of the members of the RQP Committee and/or the initial writing group. The RQP Committee may initiate an update sooner than 5 years if emerging evidence arises that is considered impactful for clinical practice or if any previous recommendation was determined to be harmful.