Dataset Information

Nonpharmacological interventions for osteoporosis treatment: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines to identify nonpharmacologic recommendations for osteoporosis treatment. Methods:A systematic review of literature following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)-statement methodology for clinical practice guidelines was conducted; PROSPERO CRD42019138548. Assessment of selected clinical practice guidelines with the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation)-II methodological quality instrument was performed, and those graded over 60 points were selected for recommendations extraction and evidence analysis. Results:Only 6 clinical practice guidelines fulfilled criteria, 69 nonpharmacological recommendations were extracted: 13 from American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology guideline, 16 from Malaysian Osteoporosis Society guideline, 15 from the Ministry of Health in Mexico guideline, 14 from Royal Australian College of General Practitioners guideline, 7 from Sociedad Española de Investigación Ósea y del Metabolismo Mineral guideline, and 7 from National Osteoporosis Guideline Group guideline. Percentage by theme showed that the highest number of recommendations were 12 (17.1%) for vitamin D, 11 (15.7%) for a combination of calcium and vitamin D, and 11 (15.7%) for exercise. Conclusions:These recommendations address integrating interventions to modify lifestyle, mainly calcium and vitamin D intake, and exercise. Other recommendations include maintaining adequate protein intake, identification and treatment of risk factors for falls, and limiting the consumption of coffee, alcohol and tobacco. Considerations on prescription must be taken.

SUBMITTER: Coronado-Zarco R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6838743 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonpharmacological interventions for osteoporosis treatment: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Coronado-Zarco Roberto R Olascoaga-Gómez de León Andrea A García-Lara Araceli A Quinzaños-Fresnedo Jimena J Nava-Bringas Tania Inés TI Macías-Hernández Salvador Israel SI

Osteoporosis and sarcopenia 20190901 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines to identify nonpharmacologic recommendations for osteoporosis treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review of literature following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)-statement methodology for clinical practice guidelines was conducted; PROSPERO CRD42019138548. Assessment of selected clinical practice guidelines with the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelin ...[more]

PMID: 31728423

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:BackgroundScientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs.Study design and settingWe conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information.ResultsWe included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations' Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs.

Project description:BackgroundMyopic macular degeneration (MMD) is a primary cause of blindness and visual impairment in many parts of the world. A review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for intervention selection are required with the increasing demand for MMD management in clinical practice as well as in national health services. Therefore, we aim to systematically review CPGs for MMD and assist the recommendations development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) program of the World Health Organization.MethodsA systematic review of CPGs published on MMD between 2010 and April 2020 was conducted. Guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Cochrane systematic reviews were also included when the evidence from included CPGs were inadequate or contradict.ResultsAfter applying exclusion criteria and conducting the quality appraisal, two CPGs were finally included. The average of the AGREE II ratings for the identified Guidelines were 56 and 63 respectively (7 for each item). To provide further information on interventions for MMD, one Cochrane review on MMD was additionally identified and included in the study. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs were recommended for patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) as first-line therapy to improve vision and reduce central macular thickness, and ranibizumab showed significant effectiveness compared to photodynamic therapy (PDT). PDT was recommended to be performed in those resistant to the treatment by one CPG but lacked of adequate description and support. Data extracted from the Cochrane systematic reviews indicated that anti-VEGF therapy for mCNV had significant effectiveness in improving visual acuity and reducing CMT compared to PDT with moderate to low certainty of evidence. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were considered as equally effective with moderate certainty.ConclusionsThe outcomes of this review suggest that high quality clinical practice guidelines for MMD management are limited. Intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents was recommended as an effective intervention to treat myopic CNV as the first-line treatment, while there was inadequate guidance for the application of PDT in myopic CNV management. The use of other interventions for MMD were not recommended at this time and additional evidence is called for.

Dataset Information

Nonpharmacological interventions for osteoporosis treatment: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Publications

Nonpharmacological interventions for osteoporosis treatment: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets