Dataset Information

Quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation for pediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years. Here, we assessed the quality of pediatric CPGs, considering factors that might affect their quality. The aim of the study is to promote a more coherent development and application of CPGs.

Methods

Pediatric CPGs published in PubMed, MedLive, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and World Health Organization between 2017 and 2019 were searched and collected. Paired researchers conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). Linear regression analysis determined the factors affecting CPGs' quality.

Results

The study included a total of 216 CPGs, which achieved a mean score of 4.26 out of 7 points (60.86%) in the AGREE II assessment. Only 6.48% of the CPGs reached the "recommend" level. The remaining 69.91% should have been modified before recommendation, while the other 23.61% did not reach the recommended level at all. The overall quality of recent pediatric CPGs was higher than previously, and the proportion of CPGs with low-quality decreased over time. However, there were still too few CPGs that reached a high-quality level. The "applicability" and "rigor of development" domains had generally low scores. CPGs formulated by developing countries or regions, those that are not under an organizations or groups responsibility, and those that used non-evidence-based methods were found to be associated with poorer quality in different domains as independent or combinational factors.

Conclusions

The quality of pediatric CPGs still needs to be improved. Specifically, a quality control before applying new CPGs should be essential to ensure their quality and applicability.

SUBMITTER: Liu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8103635 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTraumatic brain injuries (TBI) are a significant cause of mortality and morbidity for children globally. Adherence to evidence-based treatment guidelines have been shown to improve TBI outcomes. To inform the creation of a pediatric TBI management guideline for a low and middle income country context, we assessed the quality of available clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the acute management pediatric TBI.MethodsArticles were identified and retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Africa-Wide Information and Global Index Medicus. These articles were screened by four reviewers independently. Based on the eligibility criteria, with the exception of literature reviews, opinion papers and editor's letters, articles published from 1995 to November 11, 2016 which covered clinical recommendations, clinical practice or treatment guidelines for the acute management of pediatric TBI (within 24 hours) were included for review. A reference and citation analysis was performed. Seven independent reviewers from low, middle and high income clinical settings with knowledge of pediatric TBI management appraised the guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. Scores for the CPGs were aggregated by domain and overall assessment was determined.ResultsWe screened 2372 articles of which 17 were retained for data extraction and guideline appraisal. Except for one CPG from a middle income country, the majority (16/17) of the guidelines were developed in high income countries. Seven guidelines were developed specifically for the pediatric population, while the remaining CPGs addressed the acute management of TBI in both adult and pediatric populations. The New Zealand Guideline Group (NZGG, 2006) received the highest overall assessment score of 46/49 (93.88%) followed by the Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee (SNC, 2016) with a score of 45/49 (91.84%) followed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN, 2009) and Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF 2012) both with scores of 44/49 (89.80%). CPGs from Cincinnati Children's Hospital (CCH 2006) and Sao Paulo Medical School Hospital/Brazilian Society of Neurosurgery (USP/BSN, 2001) received the lowest score of 27/49 (55.10%) subsequently followed by the Appropriateness Criteria (ACR, 2015) with 29/49 (59.18%). The domains for scope and purpose and clarity of presentation received the highest scores across the CPGs, while applicability and editorial independence domains had the lowest scores with a wider variability in score range for rigor of development and stakeholder involvement.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and guideline appraisal for pediatric CPGs concerning the acute management of TBI. Targeted guideline creation specific to the pediatric population has the potential to improve the quality of acute TBI CPGs. Furthermore, it is crucial to address the applicability of a guideline to translate the CPG from a published manuscript into clinically relevant local practice tools and for resource limited practice settings.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality. DESIGN:Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies.Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a 'Rigour of Development' domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. DATA SOURCES:Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search. RESULTS:3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II 'Rigour' scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (mean 80.1%, range 64-100%) and 'Clarity and Presentation' (mean 76.7%, range 38-97%). The lowest rating domains were 'Applicability' (mean 48.7%, range 8-81%) and 'Editorial Independence' (mean 53%, range 2-90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the 'Applicability' domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS:Delirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Concerns regarding the quality, credibility, and applicability of recently published pediatric urinary tract infection (UTI) clinical practice guidelines have been raised due to the inconsistencies of recommendations between them. We aimed to determine the quality of the recent clinical practice guidelines on pediatric UTI by using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument, and summarize the standard of care in diagnosis and management of pediatric UTI from the top three clinical practice guidelines. METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed on medical literature electronic databases and international guideline repository websites. English language-based clinical practice guidelines from 2007-2016 endorsed by any international society or government organization providing recommendations for the management of pediatric UTI were considered. Eligible clinical practice guidelines were independently appraised by six reviewers using the AGREE II tool. Clinical practice guidelines were assessed for standardized domains and summarized for overall quality. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using inter-class coefficient (ICC). RESULTS:Thirteen clinical practice guidelines were critically reviewed. The Spanish clinical practice guidelines, American Academy of Pediatrics, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence clinical practice guidelines consistently scored high on all AGREE domains (total averaged domain scores 90, 88, and 88, respectively). Among the six reviewers, there was a high degree of inter-rater reliability (average measure ICC 0.938; p<0.0001). There is reasonable consensus among the top three clinical practice guidelines in their major recommendations. CONCLUSIONS:The clinical practice guidelines from Spain, American Academy of Pediatrics, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, with their major recommendations being similar, have scored highly on the AGREE II indicators of quality for the clinical practice guidelines development process.

Project description:ImportancePrimary care clinicians, who are increasingly responsible for caring for the growing population of cancer survivors, may be unfamiliar with appropriate cancer surveillance strategies. Clinical practice guidelines can inform cancer follow-up care and surveillance testing. Vague recommendations and inconsistencies among guidelines can lead to overuse and underuse of health care resources and have a negative impact on cost and quality of survivorship care.ObjectiveTo examine the specificity and consistency of recommendations for surveillance after active treatment across cancer guidelines.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of national cancer guidelines from North America and Europe published since 2010 addressing posttreatment care for survivors of the 9 most common cancers. We categorized surveillance modalities into history and physical examinations, tumor markers, diagnostic procedures (eg, colonoscopy), and imaging. Within each guideline, we classified individual recommendations into 5 categories: (1) risk-based recommendation, (2) recommendation for surveillance, (3) addressed but no clear recommendation, (4) recommendation against surveillance, or (5) cases in which surveillance was not addressed. We reviewed each surveillance recommendation for frequency and a stop date, evaluated consistency among guidelines, and analyzed associations between the organizations proposing the guidelines and recommendation characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresDescription of guideline recommendations for cancer surveillance.ResultsWe identified 41 guidelines published between January 1, 2010, and March 1, 2016. Eighty-five percent of guidelines (35) were from professional organizations. Ambiguous recommendations (ie, modality not discussed or discussed without a clear recommendation) were present in 83% of guidelines (34), and 44% (18) recommended against at least 1 test. European guidelines were more likely than North American guidelines to contain ambiguous recommendations (100% vs 68%; P < .01). Recommendations commonly specified testing frequency (from 88% [14 of 16] for tumor markers to 92% [24 of 26] for procedures and/or imaging) but infrequently provided a definitive stop time. Cross-sectional imaging recommendations varied among guidelines for each cancer. For example, among breast cancer guidelines, surveillance computed tomographic scans were recommended against in 2, discussed without a clear recommendation in 1, and not addressed in 3 guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceGuidelines addressing the care of cancer survivors have low specificity and consistency. As guidelines continue to be revised, developers should clarify recommendations with simple, nonambiguous, definitive language for or against the use of specific tests to optimize care quality and resource utilization.

Project description:IntroductionThe American Dental Association (ADA) defines evidence-based dentistry (EBD) as "an approach to oral healthcare that requires the judicious integration of systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence, relating to the oral and medical condition and history, with the dentist's clinical expertise and the patient's treatment needs and preferences." Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. Therefore, ADA CPGs are the most rigorous examples of EBD to inform clinical practice. CPGs should be of the highest level of quality to ensure the appropriateness and timeliness of clinical recommendations.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to measure the methodological rigor and transparency of the ADA CPGs.MethodsEach ADA CPG was appraised by 4 independent assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Quantitative quality scores were obtained for 6 domains and overall quality. In addition, assessors provided a qualitative analysis by providing comments for each item and an appraisal of the full recommendation.ResultsA quality score of 75% was used as the threshold for high-quality guidelines. Using this metric, 6 of the current 10 current ADA CPGs were considered to be of high quality, 1 was slightly below the quality threshold, and 3 were considered marginal. Even among those evaluated to be high quality in overall assessment, certain domains did not reach the quality threshold of 75%.ConclusionOverall, the ADA CPGs collectively provide high-quality guidance for the clinician. While the AGREE appraisal guidelines have been used in CPG development since 2016, there is still room for improvement in certain domains (i.e., stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence).Knowledge transfer statementThe results of this study summarize the methodological rigor and transparency of the 10 current ADA clinical practice guidelines. Since adoption of AGREE standards (2016), CPGs have been uniformly of high quality. The quality of older CPGs was somewhat lower but overall deemed acceptable. Thus, ADA CPGs may be used with confidence to inform practitioners of treatment options supported by rigorous evidence-based dentistry standards. However, there is still room for improvement in methodological quality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This report presents updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines summarizing quality requirements for the use of tumor markers. METHODS:One subcommittee developed guidelines for analytical quality relevant to serum and tissue-based tumor markers in current clinical practice. Two other subcommittees formulated recommendations particularly relevant to the developing technologies of microarrays and mass spectrometry. RESULTS:Prerequisites for optimal use of tumor markers in routine practice include formulation of the correct clinical questions to ensure selection of the appropriate test, adherence to good clinical and laboratory practices (e.g., minimization of the risk of incorrect patient and/or specimen identification, tube type, or timing), use of internationally standardized and well-characterized methods, careful adherence to manufacturer instructions, and proactive and timely reactions to information derived from both internal QC and proficiency-testing specimens. Highly desirable procedures include those designed to minimize the risk of the reporting of erroneous results attributable to interferences such as heterophilic antibodies or hook effects, to facilitate the provision of informative clinical reports (e.g., cumulative and/or graphical reports, appropriately derived reference intervals, and interpretative comments), and when possible to integrate these reports with other patient information through electronic health records. Also mandatory is extensive validation encompassing all stages of analysis before introduction of new technologies such as microarrays and mass spectrometry. Provision of high-quality tumor marker services is facilitated by dialogue involving researchers, diagnostic companies, clinical and laboratory users, and regulatory agencies. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of these recommendations, adapted to local practice, should encourage optimization of the clinical use of tumor markers.