[anonymised] is a French service from the [anonymised], composed of an editorial team of general practitioners (GPs) in partnership with the French National Authority for Health (HAS), among others. Since 2019, it offers a dynamic website featuring a collection of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). This tool aims to facilitate shared decision-making in primary care.Each quarter, the scientific council of [anonymised] brings together representatives from the HAS, the French national public health insurance system, and other GP scientific societies to pre-select national HAS guideline and adapt them into GP professional point of care synthesis: the CPGs, which are accessible for point-of-care decision making in GP. Working as a team, the editors select the information most relevant to GPs, restructure and summarize the content. Each GPC is then submitted to the HAS for validation, which reviews the content prior to publication and ensures that the proposals are consistent with the original content. Discussions and arbitration between the two parties take place if necessary. This procedure results in the creation of a GPC that is as readable and practical as possible. Examples applied to GPCs will be given during the presentation at each step of the described procedure.The strengths are the close and rigorous collaboration with the HAS, the editorial team composed solely of GPs, and free access to the GPCs. The challenges are the need for continuous updating and a necessary delay in the application of procedures. Experience shows the importance of collaboration between institutions and professionals to create relevant, high-quality tools. In the future, it would be relevant to explore the possible involvement of patients and other primary care professionals.[anonymised] is now a recognized tool for clinical decision support. However, challenges remain, particularly in terms of continuous updating.[anonymised], in partnership with the HAS, offers an innovative model for shared decision-making in general practice. Its impact lies in providing accessible scientific knowledge, promoting better patient care.

Antibiotic prescription, its nature and its duration are a very common decision‐making situation in primary care practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are regularly emitted by various organisations on this topic.Our goal is to run a quality appraisal of the current French guidelines, for the most common primary care infectious pathologies..We collected all primary care CPGs that are currently prevailing in France through a systematic review of the french website Antibioclic®. For each of these guidelines, a quality assessment was run by 3 independent reviewers, by means of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II instrument (AGREE II). The main outcome was a ‘reliability score’, defined as the sum of the scores in domains ‘rigour of development’ and ‘editorial independence’. To be considered ‘reliable’, the CPG had to reach a 60% threshold in these two domains. Secondary outcomes were : global quality score of CPGs, number and ratio of CPGs for which a systematic review has been conducted during its conception.Over the 43 CPGs that have been assessed, none reached the 60%‐threshold as to the reliability score. Only one CPG (2.33%) gets an over‐60% quality assessment in the domain of rigour of development (D3), whereas three CPGs (6.98%) reach this threshold in the domain of editorial independence (D6). One CPG (2.33%) met the quality threshold of 60% as to overall assessment. Rigour of development and editorial independence are the domains that obtained the lowest average score, respectively, 11% and 21%. Overall assessment received an average score of 29%. A systematic review of the literature was mentioned for 10 CPGs (23.26%)..Most French primary care infectious disease guidelines fail to reach the AGREE II quality threshold for rigour of development and editorial independence, and only about one quarter report having conducted a systematic literature review. As these criteria are essential to ensure guideline reliability, this raises major concerns regarding the trustworthiness of current recommendations. Our findings suggest that primary care infectious disease guidelines would benefit from being revised with higher methodological standards and greater independence.

The Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) promotes a healthcare environment in which diversity and inclusion (D&I) are acknowledged and valued. Language plays a crucial role. In clinical guidelines, the use of inclusive language can contribute to more equitable and respectful healthcare. However, guidelines of NHG were outdated and in several cases non-inclusive in the current cultural context. Recognizing this, the NHG has taken the initiative to develop an Inclusive Language Guide (Inclusieve Schrijfwijzer) as a foundational tool to support inclusive guideline development.A multidisciplinary D&I working group was established to develop the guide. The process involved reviewing existing guidelines, identifying exclusionary language, and consulting with stakeholders from various communities. The guide offers practical recommendations for writing in a way that is respectful, non-stigmatizing, and sensitive to differences in gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background. Difficulties include the evolving nature of inclusive language and the challenge of consistent application.Key lessons include the importance of organizational support, interdisciplinary collaboration, and ongoing reflection. The guide encourages caution in language use and promotes awareness of implicit bias. Future efforts will focus on embedding the inclusive principles of the guideline consistently into all NHG publications.This initiative aligns with the NHG’s strategic vision in Visie Huisartsenzorg 2035, which promotes a care environment where diversity and inclusion among professionals and patients are valued, recognized and accomplished.The NHG Inclusive Language Guide represents a meaningful step toward inclusive healthcare, primarily for our guidelines. In line with fraternity, it offers a replicable model for other organizations internationally, and contributes to the broader goal of equitable, person-centered care.

General practitioners require research evidence that supports real-world, patient-centred decision-making. However, medical publications frequently prioritise statistical significance, surrogate endpoints, and relative rather than absolute risks, failing to communicate outcomes that are meaningful and relevant for individual patients.A detailed review and critical analysis of reporting in randomised controlled trials, clinical guidelines, and medical publications revealed key limitations: large sample sizes are often used to demonstrate statistically significant but clinically marginal differences, while composite endpoints can obscure true relevance for patients. Based on these findings, a transparency framework was developed to ensure clear communication of study outcomes – including patient context, absolute benefits and harms, and explicit reporting of uncertainties – to better inform clinicians and patients.Statistical significance of relative differences alone cannot guide care. Context and absolute benefit and harm data a required for shared clinical decision-making. Adopting the transparency framework ensures that evidence is communicated rigorously and accessibly, with outcomes contextualised for clinicians and patients. Furthermore, journals must require that all accepted papers include fully accessible and comprehensive data reporting to uphold transparency to support informed decision-making.Bridging the gap between research and everyday care demands that researchers, editors and publishers embrace uncertainty and prioritise transparency. The framework offers actionable steps, though successful adoption will depend on broader cultural and institutional change.Transparent reporting of research evidence is essential for ethical, well-informed patient care that honours our profession’s first commitment – do no harm. Adoption of this framework can restore trust, improve clinical relevance, and advance informed, shared decision-making in clinical care.

Minor ailments are medical conditions that can be self-diagnosed and managed with limited support of a healthcare professional. Examples are blisters, hematomas, nose bleeding, stubbed toes, and insect bites. The xxx College of General Practitioners runs a large evidence-based guideline program, but minor ailments are not covered due to limited evidence. However, evidence-based recommendations on managing minor ailments in daily life can still be helpful.We drafted a guide for developing recommendations based on an existing guide using the GRADE method. Compared to standard guideline development, the number of questions is limited. If no evidence is available, guiding principles in formulating recommendations are ‘in dubio abstine’ and watchful waiting. We composed a panel of six practicing general practitioners (GPs), two practice assistants, one patient representative, and one guideline methodologist. Blisters were selected as topic to test the acceptance and feasibility of the process.The panel selected seven relevant questions on management and prevention of blisters, for example: should a blister be punctured, should it be covered with a plaster, does prevention of friction or wet feet and hands prevent blisters? The literature review yielded one guideline, one evidence report, and one systematic review. The quality of the evidence was low, sometimes indirect or absent. Based on the scarce literature, expert opinion, and consensus within the panel we formulated recommendations that largely follow existing education and advice to patients in general practice.The limited evidence base raises questions about the strength of the recommendations. However, the reliance on guiding principles such as in dubio abstine and watchful waiting, and including a feedback round among medical specialists ensures that the recommendations  are safe and broadly supported.Dealing with the absence of evidence in developing recommendations for minor ailments is challenging but feasible following a structured process with a panel of experts with experience in general practice. Further research is needed to evaluate acceptance and use in practice.

The guidelines of the xxx College of General Practitioners support general practitioners (GPs) in delivering evidence-based care in daily practice. However, the increasing volume and complexity of these guidelines pose challenges for timely and efficient information retrieval during consultations. To address this, we are developing a generative artificial intelligence (AI)-tool to search within the guidelines and provide relevant, context-driven answers, improving accessibility and usability of the guidelines.We used retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG), which first searches a curated knowledge base for guideline‑relevant passages based on the user’s query and then feeds those passages along with the query to a large language model that formulates a natural‑language answer. To ensure responses were comprehensive, accurate and safe, we conducted multiple usability tests among GPs and incorporated their feedback to improve the answers.In a short period of time, we were able to develop a functioning prototype of an AI tool to search within the xxx primary care guidelines. The tool provides suitable answers to daily clinical questions. The key challenges were: Optimizing the retrieval pipeline to achieve an optimal precision‑recall balance. Designing answers that produce guideline‑style recommendations, clear tone, actionable language, and evidence‑based phrasing. Keeping the generated answers strictly grounded in the retrieved passages and free of hallucinations.An important question is whether users are willing to use the tool in daily practice and whether it helps them to find what they need as quickly as possible, also compared to existing search facilities. A possible downside of using AI tools is the impact on planetary health.We were able to develop a generative AI-tool to search the xxx primary care guidelines, which provides suitable answers to daily clinical questions. The use of this tool bridges the gap between guideline availability and practical application and aims to improve the accessibility and usability of the guidelines.