Dataset Information

QUALITY APPRAISAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES ON PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES DURING THE FIRST MONTHS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on dental services provision during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

We systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Epistemonikos, Trip databases, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health to identify documents with recommendations intended to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during dental care. Reviewers independently and in duplicate assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardized scores for the 6 domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. The inter-appraiser agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Twenty-three CPGs published were included. Most of the CPGs were from America (n = 15) and Europe (n = 6). The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.93; 95%CI 0.87-0.95). The median score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 67% (IQR 20%); Stakeholder involvement 33% (IQR 14%); Rigour of development 13% (IQR 13%); Clarity of presentation 64% (IQR 31%); Applicability 19% (IQR 17%) and Editorial independence 8% (IQR 8%). Twenty two guidelines were not recommended by the reviewers. Only one of the CPGs was recommended with modifications. The median overall rate was 3 (IQR 1). All CPGs were classified as low quality.

Conclusions

The overall quality of CPGs on dental services provision during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic was low, which makes its implementation difficult for clinicians and policy makers. Therefore, it is critical that developers are transparent and forthcoming about the difficulties that have arisen during the CPG development process.

SUBMITTER: Deana NF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8402995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.