Dataset Information

Opioid prescribing: a systematic review and critical appraisal of guidelines for chronic pain.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Deaths due to prescription opioid overdoses have increased dramatically. High-quality guidelines could help clinicians mitigate risks associated with opioid therapy. PURPOSE:To evaluate the quality and content of guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, specialty society Web sites, and international guideline clearinghouses (searched in July 2013). STUDY SELECTION:Guidelines published between January 2007 and July 2013 addressing the use of opioids for chronic pain in adults were selected. Guidelines on specific settings, populations, and conditions were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION:Guidelines and associated systematic reviews were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), respectively, and recommendations for mitigating opioid-related risks were compared. DATA SYNTHESIS:Thirteen guidelines met selection criteria. Overall AGREE II scores were 3.00 to 6.20 (on a scale of 1 to 7). The AMSTAR ratings were poor to fair for 10 guidelines. Two received high AGREE II and AMSTAR scores. Most guidelines recommend that clinicians avoid doses greater than 90 to 200 mg of morphine equivalents per day, have additional knowledge to prescribe methadone, recognize risks of fentanyl patches, titrate cautiously, and reduce doses by at least 25% to 50% when switching opioids. Guidelines also agree that opioid risk assessment tools, written treatment agreements, and urine drug testing can mitigate risks. Most recommendations are supported by observational data or expert consensus. LIMITATION:Exclusion of non-English-language guidelines and reliance on published information. CONCLUSION:Despite limited evidence and variable development methods, recent guidelines on chronic pain agree on several opioid risk mitigation strategies, including upper dosing thresholds; cautions with certain medications; attention to drug-drug and drug-disease interactions; and use of risk assessment tools, treatment agreements, and urine drug testing. Future research should directly examine the effectiveness of opioid risk mitigation strategies. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:California Department of Industrial Relations and California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation.

SUBMITTER: Nuckols TK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6721847 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.MethodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.ResultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively.ConclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

Project description:BackgroundIn December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument.MethodsThe proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided.DiscussionThe results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- CRD42020219944.

Project description:Background Tobacco use is a leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of tobacco use dependence are of varied scope and quality, making it challenging for users to select and apply recommendations. Objective The study objective is to identify and critically appraise the quality of existing clinical practice guidelines for tobacco cessation. Setting The study occurred between collaborative academic institutions located in Qatar and New Zealand. Methods A systematic literature search was performed for the period 2006-2018 through the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, National Guideline Clearing House, Campbell Library, Health System Evidence, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice Database, Academic Search Complete, ProQuest, PROSPERO, and Google Scholar. Relevant professional societies' and health agencies' websites were also searched. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed guidelines' quality using Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Main outcome measure Standardized domain scores according to the AGREE II instrument. Results 7741 hits were identified. After removing duplicates and screening, 24 guidelines were included. Highest guideline quality was for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline with an overall ranking score of 87.56% and least quality was for Japanese Circulation Society Joint Working Group with an overall score of 29.34%. Domain 4 of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) had the highest average quality score (70.95%), while the lowest average quality scores were for Domain 2 (Rigour of Development) (50.21%) and Domain 5 (Applicability) (45.05%). Conclusion Seven guidelines were judged to be of high quality (overall score of ≥ 70%). Future guidelines for tobacco dependence treatment should use rigorous methods of development and provide applicable recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundPeripheral artery disease (PAD) is often asymptomatic but increases the risk of developing cardiovascular events. Due to the uncertainties regarding the quality of related guidelines and a lack of clear-cut evidence, we performed a systematic review and critical appraisal of these guidelines to evaluate their consistency of the recommendations in asymptomatic PAD population.MethodsGuidelines in English between January 1st, 2000 to December 31th, 2017 were screened in databases including Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, the G-I-N International Guideline Library, the National Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Canadian Medication Association Infobase and the National Library for Health. Those guidelines containing recommendations on screening and treatment for asymptomatic PAD were included, and three reviewers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Related recommendations were then fully extracted and compared by two reviewers.ResultsFourteen guidelines were included finally and the AGREE scores ranged from 39 to 73%. Most of included guidelines scored low in Rigor of development and Editorial independence, and only two guidelines (ACCF/AHA, AHA/ACC) reached the standard on Conflict of Interest from Institute of Medicine (IOM). Eight guidelines recommended screening at different strength while the others found insufficient evidence or were against screening. Conflicting recommendations on treatment were found in the target value of the lipid lowering and antiplatelet therapy. The treatment policies in three guidelines (BWG, CEVF, ESC) appeared more aggressive, but they had low transparency between guideline developer and industry or did not reach the standard of IOM.ConclusionsCurrent guidelines on asymptomatic PAD varied in the methodological quality and fell short of the standard in the rigor of development and editorial independence. Conflicting recommendations were found both on the screening and treatment. More effort is needed to provide clear-cut evidences with high quality and transparency among guideline developer and industry.

Dataset Information

Opioid prescribing: a systematic review and critical appraisal of guidelines for chronic pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets