An evidence map of clinical practice guideline recommendations and quality on diabetic retinopathy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sun Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7784673 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Importance:Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined. Objective:To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users. Exposures:Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey. Main Outcomes and Measures:Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach ?, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters. Results:A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach ??=?0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r?=?0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r?=?0.76). Conclusions and Relevance:This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.
| S-EPMC7254179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Preoperative optimization has not been explored comprehensively in the surgical literature, as this responsibility has often been divided among surgery, anesthesia and medicine. We developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to summarize existing evidence and present diagnostic and treatment algorithms for use by surgeons caring for patients scheduled to undergo major elective surgery. We focus on 3 common comorbid conditions seen across surgical specialties - anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking - as these conditions increase complication rates in patients undergoing major surgery and can be optimized successfully as soon as 6-8 weeks before surgery. With the ability to address these conditions earlier in the patient journey, surgeons can positively affect patient outcomes. The aim of this guideline is to bring optimization in the preoperative period under the existing umbrella of evidence-based surgical care.
| S-EPMC8526150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, clinical practice guidelines have been criticized for biased interpretations of research evidence, and interventional radiology is no exception.PurposeOur aim was to evaluate the methodologic quality and transparency of reporting in systematic reviews used as evidence in interventional radiology clinical practice guidelines for neurovascular disorders from the Society of Interventional Radiology.Data sourcesOur sources were 9 neurovascular disorder clinical practice guidelines from the Society of Interventional Radiology.Study selectionWe selected 65 systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Data analysisA Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) tools were used to assess the methodologic quality and reporting transparency of systematic reviews. Radial plots were created on the basis of average scores for PRISMA and AMSTAR items.Data synthesisOn the basis of AMSTAR scores, 3 (4.62%) reviews were high-quality, 28 reviews (43.08%) were moderate-quality, and 34 reviews (52.31%) were low-quality, with an average quality score of 3.66 (34.32%; minimum, 0%; maximum, 81.82%). The average PRISMA score was 18.18 (69.41%).LimitationsWe were unable to obtain previous versions for 8 reviews, 7 of which were from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.ConclusionsThe methodologic quality of systematic reviews needs to be improved. Although reporting clarity was much better than the methodologic quality, it still has room for improvement. The methodologic quality and transparency of reporting did not vary much among clinical practice guidelines. This study can also be applied to other medical specialties to examine the quality of studies used as evidence in their own clinical practice guidelines.
| S-EPMC7960238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Depression affects over 300 million individuals worldwide and is responsible for most of the 800,000 annual suicides. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treatment of depression, founded on scientific evidence, are essential to improve patient care. However, economic and sociocultural factors may influence CPG elaboration, potentially leading to divergences in their recommendations. Consequently, we analyzed pharmacological recommendations for the treatment of depression from the most relevant CPGs. We included four CPGs with scores ? 80% for Domain 3 (rigor of development) on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation and two other commonly used CPGs. The recommendations, their strengths, and the level of evidence were extracted from each CPG by two independent researchers and grouped as follows: (1) general recommendations for the pharmacological treatment for depression (suicide risk, acute treatment, continuation and maintenance phases, and treatment discontinuation); (2) treatment of non-responsive or partially responsive patients; and (3) treatment for subtypes of depression (chronic, psychotic, catatonic, melancholic, seasonal, somatic, mixed, and atypical). Only 50% of CPGs included recommendations for the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. All CPGs included serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as first-line treatment; however, one CPG also included agomelatine, milnacipran, and mianserin as first-line alternatives. Recommendations for depression subtypes (catatonic, atypical, melancholic) were included in three CPGs. The strength of recommendation and level of evidence clearly differed among CPGs, especially regarding treatment augmentation strategies. We conclude that, although CPGs converged in some recommendations (e.g., SSRIs as first-line treatment), they diverged in cardinal topics including the absence of recommendations regarding the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. Consequently, the recommendations listed in a specific CPG should be followed with caution.
| S-EPMC7173786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEvidence suggests the presence of deficiencies in the quality of care provided to up to half of all paediatric trauma patients in Canada, the USA and Australia. Lack of adherence to evidence-based recommendations may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aim to systematically review CPG recommendations for paediatric injury care and appraise their quality.Methods and analysisWe will identify CPG recommendations through a comprehensive search strategy including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and websites of organisations publishing recommendations on paediatric injury care. We will consider CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting paediatric injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention from the acute phase of care with any comparator developed in high-income countries in the last 15 years (January 2007 to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text of eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the quality of CPGs and their recommendations using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE Recommendations Excellence instruments, respectively. We will synthesise evidence on recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework and present results within a recommendations matrix.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not a requirement as this study is based on available published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international scientific meetings and distributed to healthcare providers.Prospero registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226934).
| S-EPMC9047816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline of acupuncture in the treatment of patients with moderate and severe cancer pain.MethodsThe development of this guideline was triggered by a systematic review published in JAMA Oncology in 2020. We searched databases and websites for evidence on patient preferences and values, and other resources of using acupuncture for treatment of cancer pain. Recommendations were developed through a Delphi consensus of an international multidisciplinary panel including 13 western medicine oncologists, Chinese medicine/acupuncture clinical practitioners, and two patient representatives. The certainty of evidence, patient preferences and values, resources, and other factors were fully considered in formulating the recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations.ResultsThe guideline proposed three recommendations: (1) a strong recommendation for the treatment of acupuncture rather than no treatment to relieve pain in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain; (2) a weak recommendation for the combination treatments with acupuncture/acupressure to reduce pain intensity, decrease the opioid dose, and alleviate opioid-related side effects in moderate to severe cancer pain patients who are using analgesics; and (3) a strong recommendation for acupuncture in breast cancer patients to relieve their aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia.ConclusionThis proposed guideline provides recommendations for the management of patients with cancer pain. The small sample sizes of evidence limit the strength of the recommendations and highlights the need for additional research.
| S-EPMC8728906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeEvaluating patients and treatment decisions in a multidisciplinary tumor board has led to better quality of care and longer survival in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate tumor board recommendations for thoracic oncology patients regarding guideline adherence and transferal of recommendations into clinical practice.MethodsWe evaluated tumor board recommendations of the thoracic oncology tumor board at Ludwig-Maximilians University (LMU) Hospital Munich between 2014 and 2016. We compared patient characteristics between guideline-adherent and non-guideline-adherent recommendations, as well as between transferred and non-transferred recommendations. We used multivariate logistic regression models to evaluate factors associated with guideline adherence.ResultsOver 90% of recommendations by the tumor board were either adherent to the guidelines (75.5%) or over fulfilling guidelines (15.6%). Almost 90% of recommendations were transferred to clinical practice. If a recommendation was not according to the guidelines, the reason was mostly associated with the general condition (age, Charlson comorbidity index, ECOG) of the patient or due to the patients' request. Surprisingly, sex also had a significant influence on the guideline adherence of recommendations, with females being more likely to get recommendations not according to the guidelines.ConclusionIn conclusion, the results of this study are promising, as the guideline adherence of recommendations as well as the transferal of recommendations into clinical practice were high. In the future, a special focus should be put on fragile patients as well as female patients.
| S-EPMC10465379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of clinical practice guidelines envisages augmenting quality and best practice in clinical outcomes. Generic guidelines that are not adapted for local use often fail to produce these outcomes. Adaptation is a systematic and rigorous process that should maintain the quality and validity of the guideline, while making it more usable by the targeted users. Diverse skills are required for the task of adaptation. Although adapting a guideline is not a guarantee that it will be implemented, adaptation may improve acceptance and adherence to its recommendations.MethodsWe describe the process used to adapt clinical guidelines for diabetic retinopathy in Kenya, using validated tools and manuals. A technical working group consisting of volunteers provided leadership.ResultsThe process was intensive and required more time than anticipated. Flexibility in the process and concurrent health system activities contributed to the success of the adaptation. The outputs from the adaptation include the guidelines in different formats, point of care instruments, as well as tools for training, monitoring, quality assurance and patient education.ConclusionGuideline adaptation is applicable and feasible at the national level in Kenya. However, it is labor- and time -intensive. It presents a valuable opportunity to develop several additional outputs that are useful at the point of care.
| S-EPMC6003001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We herein summarise the evidence concerning the impact of sperm DNA fragmentation in various clinical infertility scenarios and the advances on sperm DNA fragmentation tests. The collected evidence was used to formulate 41 recommendations. Of these, 13 recommendations concern technical aspects of sperm DNA fragmentation testing, including pre-analytical information, clinical thresholds and interpretation of results. The remaining 28 recommendations relate to indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing and clinical management. Clinical scenarios like varicocele, unexplained infertility, idiopathic infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, fertility counselling for men with infertility risk factors and sperm cryopreservation have been contemplated. The bulk evidence supporting the recommendations has increased in recent years, but it is still of moderate to low quality. This guideline provides clinicians with advice on best practices in sperm DNA fragmentation testing. Also, recommendations are provided on possible management strategies to overcome infertility related to sperm DNA fragmentation, based on the best available evidence. Lastly, we identified gaps in knowledge and opportunities for research and elaborated a list of recommendations to stimulate further investigation.
| S-EPMC7988559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME).Cross-sectional study.Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.We provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions.Ranking of importance of each clinical question.Thirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as "must be measured in all studies" included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review.A limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high priority for the management of DR, including DME, but few were associated with Cochrane reviews. These results support the need of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials to address evidence gaps.
| S-EPMC5510756 | biostudies-literature