Dataset Information

Postpartum care indications and methodological quality:a systematic review of guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coverage of postpartum care is not ideal, and has not been used very well due to not enough attention being paid to the puerperal women and newborns, especially in developing countries. Practice guidelines on postpartum care provide beneficial practice guidance and help to reduce maternal mortality. However, little is known about the credibility and consistency of those guidelines. This systematic review was conducted to summarize main postpartum care indications and appraise methodological quality of guidelines.

Methods

Seven literature databases and guideline development institutions and organizations of obstetrics and maternity care were searched. Two reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II instrument, and synthesized consistent and non-consistent recommendations using the content analysis approach.

Results

Twenty-nine guidelines were included and a total of eight postpartum care indications were identified. Most guidelines focused on care indications and interventions including exclusive breastfeeding, maternal nutrition, home visit, infant or newborn care and sexuality, contraception, and birth spacing. However, indications such as pain or weight management, pelvic floor muscle training, abdominal rehabilitation, and mental health got less attention. Additionally, the overall quality of all involving postpartum care guidelines is relatively good and acceptable.

Conclusions

Guidelines developed by NICE, RANO, and WHO indicated higher methodological quality. For postpartum care indications, most guidelines are incomplete. Variation in practice guidelines for postpartum care recommendations exists. In the future, implementation research into shared decision-making, as well as further high-quality research to broaden the evidence base for postpartum care indications is recommended.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-021-01629-4.

SUBMITTER: Yang M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8288832 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPG) are statements that provide recommendations regarding the approach to different diseases and aim to increase quality while decreasing the risk of complications in health care. Numerous guidelines in the field of perioperative care have been published in the previous decade but their methodological quality and transparency are relatively unknown.ObjectiveTo critically evaluate the transparency and methodological quality of published CPG in the preoperative assessment and management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery.DesignSystematic review and methodological appraisal study.Data sourcesWe searched for eligible CPG published in English or Spanish between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022, in Pubmed MEDLINE, TRIP Database, Embase, the Cochrane Library, as well as in representatives' medical societies of Anaesthesiology and developers of CPG.Eligibility criteriaCPG dedicated on preoperative fasting, cardiac assessment for non-cardiac surgery, and the use of routine preoperative tests were included. Methodological quality and transparency of CPG were assessed by 3 evaluators using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II tool.ResultsWe included 20 CPG of which 14 were classified as recommended guidelines. The domain of "applicability" scored the lowest (44%), while the domains "scope and objective" and "editorial interdependence" received the highest median scores of 93% and 97% respectively. The remaining domains received scores ranging from 44% to 84%. The top mean scored CPG in preoperative fasting was ASA 2017 (93%); among cardiac evaluation, CPG for non-cardiac surgery were CCS 2017 (91%), ESC-ESA 2014 (90%), and AHA-ACC 2014 (89%); in preoperative testing ICSI 2020 (97%).ConclusionsIn the last ten years, most published CPG in the preoperative assessment or management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery focused on preoperative fasting, cardiac assessment for non-cardiac surgery, and use of routine preoperative tests, present moderate to high methodological quality and can be recommended for their use or adaptation. Applicability and stakeholder involvement domains must be improved in the development of future guidelines.

Project description:ObjectivesPatients with severe spontaneous intracranial haemorrhages, managed in intensive care units, face ethical issues regarding the difficulty of anticipating their recovery. Prognostic tools help clinicians in counselling patients and relatives and guide therapeutic decisions. We aimed to methodologically assess prognostic tools for functional outcomes in severe spontaneous intracranial haemorrhages.Data sourcesFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations, we conducted a systematic review querying Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane in January 2020.Study selectionWe included development or validation of multivariate prognostic models for severe intracerebral or subarachnoid haemorrhage.Data extractionWe evaluated the articles following the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies and Transparent Reporting of multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statements to assess the tools' methodological reporting.ResultsOf the 6149 references retrieved, we identified 85 articles eligible. We discarded 43 articles due to the absence of prognostic performance or predictor selection. Among the 42 articles included, 22 did not validate models, 6 developed and validated models and 14 only externally validated models. When adding 11 articles comparing developed models to existing ones, 25 articles externally validated models. We identified methodological pitfalls, notably the lack of adequate validations or insufficient performance levels. We finally retained three scores predicting mortality and unfavourable outcomes: the IntraCerebral Haemorrhages (ICH) score and the max-ICH score for intracerebral haemorrhages, the SubArachnoid Haemorrhage International Trialists score for subarachnoid haemorrhages.ConclusionsAlthough prognostic studies on intracranial haemorrhages abound in the literature, they lack methodological robustness or show incomplete reporting. Rather than developing new scores, future authors should focus on externally validating and updating existing scores with large and recent cohorts.

Project description:BackgroundAnnually, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) kill 38 million people worldwide, with low and middle-income countries accounting for three-quarters of these deaths. High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are fundamental to improving NCD management. The present study evaluated the methodological rigor and transparency of Brazilian CPGs that recommend pharmacological treatment for the most prevalent NCDs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for CPGs of the following NCDs: asthma, atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease and/or stable angina, dementia, depression, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. CPGs comprising pharmacological treatment recommendations were included. No language or year restrictions were applied. CPGs were excluded if they were merely for local use and referred to NCDs not listed above. CPG quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument, version II (AGREE II).Main findings"Scope and purpose" and "clarity and presentation" domains received the highest scores. Sixteen of 26 CPGs were classified as low quality, and none were classified as high overall quality. No CPG was recommended without modification (77% were not recommended at all). After 2009, 2 domain scores ("rigor of development" and "clarity and presentation") increased (61% and 73%, respectively). However, "rigor of development" was still rated < 30%.ConclusionBrazilian healthcare professionals should be concerned with CPG quality for the treatment of selected NCDs. Features that undermined AGREE II scores included the lack of a multidisciplinary team for the development group, no consideration of patients' preferences, insufficient information regarding literature searches, lack of selection criteria, formulating recommendations, authors' conflict of interest disclosures, and funding body influence.