Dataset Information

Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To appraise the availability, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced in the early stage of the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic. DESIGN:Rapid review. DATA SOURCES:Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and WHO Global Index Medicus, searched from inception to 14 Mar 2020. Search strategies applied the CADTH database guidelines search filter, with no limits applied to search results. Further studies were identified through searches of grey literature using the ISARIC network. INCLUSION CRITERIA:Clinical guidelines for the management of covid-19, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) produced by international and national scientific organisations and government and non-governmental organisations relating to global health were included, with no exclusions for language. Regional/hospital guidelines were excluded. Only the earliest version of any guideline was included. QUALITY ASSESSMENT:Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. The quality and contents of early covid-19 guidelines were also compared with recent clinical guidelines for MERS and SARS. RESULTS:2836 studies were identified, of which 2794 were excluded after screening. Forty two guidelines were considered eligible for inclusion, with 18 being specific to covid-19. Overall, the clinical guidelines lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Recommendations varied in relation to, for example, the use of antiviral drugs. The overall quality was poor, particularly in the domains of stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence. Links between evidence and recommendations were limited. Minimal provision was made for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, and older people. CONCLUSIONS:Guidelines available early in the covid-19 pandemic had methodological weaknesses and neglected vulnerable groups such as older people. A framework for development of clinical guidelines during public health emergencies is needed to ensure rigorous methods and the inclusion of vulnerable populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42020167361.

SUBMITTER: Dagens A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7249097 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid review.

Dagens Andrew A Sigfrid Louise L Cai Erhui E Lipworth Sam S Cheng Vincent V Harris Eli E Bannister Peter P Rigby Ishmeala I Horby Peter P

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20200526

<h4>Objective</h4>To appraise the availability, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced in the early stage of the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic.<h4>Design</h4>Rapid review.<h4>Data sources</h4>Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and WHO Global Index Medicus, searched from inception to 14 Mar 2020. Search strategies applied the CADTH database guidelines search filter, with no limits applied to search results. Furth ...[more]

PMID: 32457027

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesClinical characterisation studies have been essential in helping inform research, diagnosis and clinical management efforts, particularly early in a pandemic. This systematic review summarises the early literature on clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital, and evaluates the quality of evidence produced during the initial stages of the pandemic.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases were searched for studies published from January 1st 2020 to April 28th 2020. Studies which reported on at least 100 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 of any age were included. Data on clinical characteristics were independently extracted by two review authors. Study design specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate included studies: the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort and cross sectional studies, Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series and the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.ResultsThe search yielded 78 studies presenting data on 77,443 people. Most studies (82%) were conducted in China. No studies included patients from low- and middle-income countries. The overall quality of included studies was low to moderate, and the majority of studies did not include a control group. Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms early in the pandemic. Laboratory and imaging findings were diverse with lymphocytopenia and ground glass opacities the most common findings respectively. Clinical data in children and vulnerable populations were limited.ConclusionsThe early Covid-19 literature had moderate to high risk of bias and presented several methodological issues. Early clinical characterisation studies should aim to include different at-risk populations, including patients in non-hospital settings. Pandemic preparedness requires collection tools to ensure observational studies are methodologically robust and will help produce high-quality data early on in the pandemic to guide clinical practice and public health policy.Review registrationAvailable at https://osf.io/mpafn.

Project description:ObjectiveIt is estimated that up to 75% of patients with severe mental illness (SMI) also have substance use disorder (SUD). The aim of this systematic review was to explore the scope, quality and inclusivity of international clinical guidelines on mental health and/or substance abuse in relation to diagnosis and treatment of co-existing disorders and considerations for wider social and contextual factors in treatment recommendations.MethodA protocol (PROSPERO CRD42020187094) driven systematic review was conducted. A systematic search was undertaken using six databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsychInfo from 2010 till June 2020; and webpages of guideline bodies and professional societies. Guideline quality was assessed based on 'Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II' (AGREE II) tool. Data was extracted using a pre-piloted structured data extraction form and synthesized narratively. Reporting was based on PRISMA guideline.ResultA total of 12,644 records were identified. Of these, 21 guidelines were included in this review. Three of the included guidelines were related to coexisting disorders, 11 related to SMI, and 7 guidelines were related to SUD. Seven (out of 18) single disorder guidelines did not adequately recommend the importance of diagnosis or treatment of concurrent disorders despite their high co-prevalence. The majority of the guidelines (n = 15) lacked recommendations for medicines optimisation in accordance with concurrent disorders (SMI or SUD) such as in the context of drug interactions. Social cause and consequence of dual diagnosis such as homelessness and safeguarding and associated referral pathways were sparsely mentioned.ConclusionDespite very high co-prevalence, clinical guidelines for SUD or SMI tend to have limited considerations for coexisting disorders in diagnosis, treatment and management. There is a need to improve the scope, quality and inclusivity of guidelines to offer person-centred and integrated care.

Project description:Cardiac rehabilitation is a comprehensive model of secondary prevention proven to reduce mortality and morbidity. The World Health Organization is developing a Package of Rehabilitation Interventions for implementation by ministries of health as part of universal healthcare across the continuum. Through a systematic review, we sought to identify the best-quality cardiac rehabilitation guidelines, and extract their recommendations for implementation by member states. A systematic search was undertaken of academic databases and guideline repositories, among other sources, through to April 2019, for English-language cardiac rehabilitation guidelines from the last 10 years, free from conflicts, and with strength of recommendations. Two authors independently considered all citations. Potentially eligible guidelines were rated for quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool, and for other characteristics such as being multi-professional, comprehensive and international in perspective; the latter criteria were used to inform selection of 3-5 guidelines meeting inclusion criteria. Equity considerations were also extracted. Altogether, 2076 unique citations were identified. Thirteen passed title and abstract screening, with six guidelines potentially eligible for inclusion in the Package of Rehabilitation Interventions and rated for quality; for two guidelines the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool ratings did not meet World Health Organization minimums. Of the four eligible guidelines, three were selected: the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (2016), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (#172; 2013) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (#150; 2017). Extracted recommendations were comprehensive, but psychosocial recommendations were contradictory and diet recommendations were inconsistent. A development group of the World Health Organization will review and refine the recommendations which will then undergo peer review, before open source dissemination for implementation.

Project description:AimsIndividuals taking immunosuppressants are at increased susceptibility to viral infections in general. However, due to the novel nature of the COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence about the specific risks of the disease in this patient group. This systematic review aims to summarize the current international clinical guidelines to highlight areas where research is needed through critical appraisal of the evidence base of these guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines about the usage of immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and the websites of relevant professional bodies were searched for English language guidelines that were published or updated between March 2020 and May 2020 in this area. We assessed the quality and consistency of guidelines. The evidence base underpinning these guidelines was critically appraised using GRADE criteria.ResultsTwenty-three guidelines were included. Most guidelines (n = 15, 65.2%) informed and updated evidence based on expert opinion. The methodological quality of the guidelines varied, ranging from 'very low' to 'moderate'. Guidelines consistently recommended that high-risk patients, including those who are taking high doses of steroids for more than a month, or a combination of two or more immunosuppressants, should be shielding during the outbreak. Most guidelines stated that steroids usage should not be stopped abruptly and advised on individualized risk-benefit analysis considering the risk of the effect of COVID-19 infection and the relapse of the autoimmune condition in patients.DiscussionClinical practice guidelines on taking immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 outbreak vary in quality. The level of evidence informing the available guidelines was generally low. Given the novel nature of COVID-19, the guidelines draw on existing knowledge and data, refer to the use of immunosuppressants and risks of serious infections of other aetiologies and have extrapolated these to form their evidence base.

Dataset Information

Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid review.

Publications

Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets