Critical Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations in COVID-19 Management Guidelines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Little is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management.Methods
We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II.Results
A total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as "recommended" for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management.Conclusions
The quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.
SUBMITTER: Xie J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8360242 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:UnlabelledThe American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guidelines provide recommendations in diagnosing and managing patients with liver disease from available scientific evidence in combination with expert consensus opinions. The aim was to systematically review the evolution of recommendations from AASLD guidelines and identify gaps limiting the evidence-based foundations of these guidelines. Initial and current AASLD guidelines published from January 1998 to August 2012 were reviewed. The AGREE II instrument was used to evaluate rigor and transparency of guideline development. The number of recommendations, distribution of grades (strength or certainty), classes (benefit versus risk), and types of recommendations were evaluated. Whenever possible, multiple versions were evaluated for evolving scientific evidence. A total of 991 recommendations from 28 guidelines on 17 topics were evaluated. From initial to current guidelines, the total number of recommendations increased by 36% (512 to 699). The largest increases were from chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) (+71), liver transplantation (+53), and autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) (+27). Most current recommendations are grade II (44%) and less than 20% are grade I. The AGREE II evaluation showed global improvement in guideline quality. Both HBV and chronic hepatitis C guidelines had greatest increases in grade I recommendations (+383% and +67%, respectively). The greatest increases in treatment recommendations were from HBV (grade I, +1,150%), liver transplantation (grade II, +112%), and AIH (grade III, +105%).ConclusionDespite significant increases in the numbers of recommendations within AASLD practice guidelines over time, only a minority are supported by grade I evidence, highlighting the need for developing well-designed investigations to provide evidence for areas of uncertainty and improving the quality of future guidelines in hepatobiliary diseases.
| S-EPMC4613804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.
| S-EPMC8248791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that should be rigorously developed to guide clinicians' decision-making. However, given the scarce evidence for certain vulnerable groups like children, CPGs' recommendations formulation could be challenging.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of CPGs for COVID-19 management in children. Documents were included if they claimed to be a "clinical practice guideline", published between January and October 2021, and described the process followed to issue their recommendations. We assessed the quality using the "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II" (AGREE-II) and described how the recommendations were reached.ResultsWe found five CPGs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The median score on the overall AGREE-II evaluation was 61% (range: 49%-72%), and the score on the third domain referred to the rigor of methodological development was 52% (range: 25%-88%). Recommendations for remdesivir, tocilizumab, and intravenous immunoglobulin were heterogeneous across CPGs (in favor, against, no recommendation), as well as the methodologies used to present the evidence, perform the benefits/harms balance, and issue the recommendation.ConclusionsHeterogeneous recommendations and justifications across CPGs were found in the three assessed topics. Future CPGs should describe in detail their evidence-to-decision process to issue reliable and transparent recommendations.
| S-EPMC9077803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument.MethodsThe proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided.DiscussionThe results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- CRD42020219944.
| S-EPMC8694758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented as a therapeutic challenge for clinicians worldwide due to its rapid spread along with evolving evidence and understanding of the disease. Internationally, recommendations to guide the management of COVID-19 have been created and updated continuously by the WHO and CDC, which have been locally adapted by different countries. Similarly, Pakistan's National Command Operation Center (NCOC), in its national COVID-19 management strategy, generated guidelines for national implementation. Keeping the guidelines updated has proved challenging globally and locally. Here, we present a summary of the process to assess the evidence, including a time-restricted systematic review based on NCOC Clinical Management Guidelines for COVID-19 Infections v4 published on 11th December 2020 version, correlating it with current recommendations and with input one of the guidelines authors, particularly noting the methodological challenges.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review synthesizing global research on treatment options for COVID-19 hospitalized patients, limiting it to pharmacological interventions for hospitalized COVID-19 patients included in Pakistan's NCOC's national guidelines v4 published on 11th December 2020. Each treatment recommendation's strength and quality of evidence was assessed based on the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. These were then compared to the most current living WHO COVID-19 pharmacological treatment guidelines v7.1. One of the authors of the NCOC guidelines reviewed and commented on the findings as well.ResultsWe note that the data from our systematic review strongly supports corticosteroids use in treating severe and critically ill COVID-19 hospitalized patients correlating with WHO v7.1 guidelines 24 September 2021. However, evidence from our review and WHO v7.1 for the use of tocilizumab had some conflicting evidence, with data from our review until December 2020 supporting only a weak recommendation for its use, compared to the strong recommendation by the WHO for the use of tocilizumab in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infection. Regarding the use of antibiotics and ivermectin use in treating COVID-19 hospitalized patients, data from our review and WHO v 7.1 recommend against their use.ConclusionResearch data about the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are rapidly evolving, and based on it, the evidence for or against recommendations changes accordingly. Our study illustrates the challenges of keeping up with the evidence; the recommendations were based on studies up till December 2021, and we have compared our recommendations with the WHO v7.1, which showed some significant changes in the use of pharmacological treatment options.
| S-EPMC9020141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The roadmap to elective surgery resumption after this COVID-19 pandemic should be progressive and cautious. The aim of this paper was to give recommendations and guidelines for resuming elective orthopedic surgery in the safest environment possible. Elective surgery should be performed in COVID-free facilities and hospital stay should be as short as possible. For matters of safety, patients considered first for surgery should be carefully selected according to COVID infection status/exposure, age, ASA physical status classification system / risk factors, socio-professional situation and surgical indication. A strategy for resuming elective surgery in four phases is proposed. Preoperative testing for COVID-19 infection is highly recommended. In any cases, COVID symptoms including fever and increased temperature should be constantly monitored until the day of surgery. Elective surgery should be postponed at the slightest suspicion of a COVID-19 infection. In case of surgery, adapted personal protective equipment in terms of gowns, gloves, masks and eye protection is highly recommended and described.
| S-EPMC7220621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIM:To compile recommendations and evidence on the practical management of pregnant women with COVIC-19 in order to clarify standards of obstetric care in the face of this new disease. METHODS:Scoping review based on literaature searches in national and international health science databases (Pubmed/Medline, Biblioteca virtual en salud (BVS), Scielo, COCHRANE and CUIDEN) and websites, and additionally by a "snowball" system. MeSH terms were used: "COVID-19", "Pregnancy", "Delivery, Obstetric" "Pregnant Women" and "Maternal". As limits in the search Spanish and English languages were selected. No limits were established in relation to the year of publication or type of article. RESULTS:A total of 49 documents and articles were detected, of which 27 were analyzed, 18 were used, and 9 were discarded because they did not contain practical recommendations. The recommendations were grouped into 9 subjects: Prevention of infection in pregnant women, Prevention of infection in health care personnel attending pregnant women, Form of presentation and severity in pregnant women, Maternal-fetal transmission (vertical and perinatal), Maternal-fetal control of the pregnant woman infected with COVID-19, Control of the severely pregnant woman with COVID-19, Treatment of the pregnant woman with COVID-19, Management and route of termination of labor, Neonatal outcomes in women with COVID-19 and Breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS:Lack of strong evidence to support many of the recommendations for pregnant women with COVID-19, as they are based on previous experience with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. Further studies are needed to confirm the appropriateness of many of the recommendations and guidelines for action in the specific case of pregnant women and COVIC-19.
| S-EPMC7231730 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST416 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPolicymakers and health professionals prefer to use summarized evidence of practice recommendations. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to identify available guidelines, consensus statements, the standard of practice, and practice recommendations on reproductive health service provision during the COVID-19 pandemics.MethodsWe searched guideline databases and websites of professional associations and international organizations working on sexual and reproductive health. We looked for practice recommendations on sexual reproductive health services (SRH) during COVID-19 pandemics. Additionally, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Data extraction was done by two independent reviewers using a customized tool that was developed to record the key information of the source that's relevant to the review question. The difference between the two authors on data extraction was resolved by discussion.ResultsA total of 21 records were included in the review. Identified recommendations were classified into thematic areas. The records addressed approaches to antenatal care, labour and delivery, postnatal care, safe abortion, contraception, gender-based violence, and artificial reproduction.ConclusionsThere were consistent consensus statements and recommendations that there should be access to sexual and reproductive health services like antenatal care (ANC), postnatal care (PNC), contraception service, safe abortion care, and clinical management of rape survivors during the COVID-19 pandemics with the concerted effort of service re-organization. The practice recommendations focus on innovative ways of service provision to minimize patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 as well as alleviate the burden on the health care system. These include utilizing telemedicine and community/home-based care or self-care.
| S-EPMC7856605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Evidence-based recommendations for outpatient management of COVID-19 were published by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to limit the use of off-label treatments. The aim of this study is to measure the use of outpatient drug treatments in a COVID-19-positive population, taking into account the Italian regulatory agency's advices. Methods: A descriptive observational study was conducted. All patients testing positive for COVID-19 residing in Lazio region, Italy, with diagnosis date between March 2020 and May 2021 were selected, and outpatient medicine prescription patterns were identified. Results: Independent of AIFA recommendations, the use of drug therapy in the management of outpatient COVID-19 cases was frequent (about one-third of the cases). The most used drug therapy was antibiotics, specifically azithromycin, despite the negative recommendation of AIFA, while the use of corticosteroids increased after the positive recommendation of regulatory agency for the use in subjects with severe COVID-19 disease. The use of hydroxychloroquine was limited to the early pandemic period where evidence on its potential benefit was controversial. Antithrombotics were widely used in outpatient settings, even if their use was recommended for hospitalized patients. Conclusion: In this study, we show a frequent use of drug therapy in the management of outpatient cases of COVID-19, mainly attributable to antibiotics use. Our research highlights the discrepancy between recommendations for care and clinical practice and the need for strategies to bridge gaps in evidence-informed decision-making.
| S-EPMC8988061 | biostudies-literature