Dataset Information

Systematic review of global clinical practice guidelines for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Hyperbilirubinemia is one of the most common clinical symptoms in newborns. To improve patient outcomes, evidence-based and implementable guidelines are required. However, clinical guidelines may vary in quality, criteria and recommendations among regions and countries. In this study, we aimed to systematically assess the quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE)-II instrument and summarise the specific recommendations for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia in order to provide suggestions for future guideline development.

Design

Systematic review.

Interventions

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Medline and guideline databases for relevant articles on 10 April 2020. The studies were screened by two independent reviewers according to our inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted the descriptive data. Four appraisers assessed the guidelines using the AGREE-II instrument.

Results

Our systematic review appraised 12 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. The 12 guidelines achieved an average score of 36%-89%. The guidelines received the highest scores for clarity of presentation and lowest scores for rigour of development. Most recommendations for diagnosis were relatively consistent, but recommendations regarding risk factors, the initiating threshold of treatment and pharmacotherapy varied.

Conclusions

Our study revealed that current guidelines vary in the quality of the developing process and are inconsistent with regards to recommendations. Future guidelines should afford more attention to the quality of methodologies in guideline development, and more qualified evidence is needed to standardise the initiating threshold of treatment for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.

SUBMITTER: Zhang M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7817798 | biostudies-literature |

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: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.

Project description:Background Increasing numbers of neonates are undergoing painful procedures in low-income and middle-income countries, with adequate analgesia seldom used. In collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team in Kenya, we aimed to establish the first evidence-based guidelines for the management of routine procedure-related neonatal pain that consider low-resource hospital settings.MethodsWe did a systematic review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases for studies published from Jan 1, 1953, to March 31, 2019. We included data from randomised controlled trials using heart rate, oxygen saturation (SpO2), premature infant pain profile (PIPP) score, neonatal infant pain scale (NIPS) score, neonatal facial coding system score, and douleur aiguë du nouveau-né scale score as pain outcome measures. We excluded studies in which neonates were undergoing circumcision or were intubated, studies from which data were unextractable, or when pain was scored by non-trained individuals. We did a narrative synthesis of all studies, and meta-analysis when data were available from multiple studies comparing the same analgesics and controls and using the same outcome measures. 17 Kenyan health-care professionals formed our clinical guideline development panel, and we used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and the panel's knowledge of the local health-care context to guide the guideline development process. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019126620.FindingsOf 2782 studies assessed for eligibility, data from 149 (5%) were analysed, with 80 (3%) of these further contributing to our meta-analysis. We found a high level of certainty for the superiority of breastfeeding over placebo or no intervention (standardised mean differences [SMDs] were -1·40 [95% CI -1·96 to -0·84] in PIPP score and -2·20 [-2·91 to -1·48] in NIPS score), and the superiority of oral sugar solutions over placebo or no intervention (SMDs were -0·38 [-0·61 to -0·16] in heart rate and 0·23 [0·04 to 0·42] in SpO2). We found a moderate level of certainty for the superiority for expressed breastmilk over placebo or no intervention (SMDs were -0·46 [95% CI -0·87 to -0·05] in heart rate and 0·48 [0·20 to 0·75] in SpO2). Therefore, the panel recommended that breastfeeding should be given as first-line analgesic treatment, initiated at least 2 min pre-procedure. Given contextual factors, for neonates who are unable to breastfeed, 1-2 mL of expressed breastmilk should be given as first-line analgesic, or 1-2 mL of oral sugar (≥10% concentration) as second-line analgesic. The panel also recommended parental presence during procedures with adjunctive provision of skin-to-skin care, or non-nutritive sucking when possible.InterpretationWe have generated Kenya's first neonatal analgesic guidelines for routine procedures, which have been adopted by the Kenyan Ministry of Health, and have shown a framework for clinical guideline development that is applicable to other low-income and middle-income health-care settings.FundingWellcome Trust Research Programme, and the Africa-Oxford Initiative.