Dataset Information

Systematic Review: Recommendations for Rehabilitation in ASD and ID From Clinical Practice Guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify and summarize clinical practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) for the Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation for the World Health Organization (WHO).

Data sources

Academic databases, Google Scholar, guideline databases, and professional society websites were searched using the general criteria "ASD/ID" AND "rehabilitation" AND "guideline," restricted to English-only guidelines.

Study selection

Work group members independently screened titles and abstracts (1952 ASD; 1027 ID) and excluded articles if not (1) a guideline; (2) about rehabilitation; (3) published since 2008; or (4) about ASD/ID. Full-text screening (29 ASD; 5 ID) involved 3 additional exclusion criteria: (1) contained conflict of interest; (2) lacked information on strength of recommendation; or (3) failed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Six guidelines (4 ASD: 2 on youth, 1 on adults, 1 on all ages; 2 ID: 1 on challenging behaviors, 1 on mental health) resulted.

Data extraction

Work group members extracted 524 recommendations (386 ASD; 138 ID) from the guidelines including the level of evidence, diagnostic and age group, recommendation type (assessment, intervention, service), target, and valence.

Data synthesis

Of the 270 intervention recommendations (212 ASD; 58 ID), only 36 for ASD and 47 for ID were empirically based. Most comprised biomedical (23%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychosocial (21%) interventions for ASD and behavioral (14%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychological (14%) interventions for ID. Intervention recommendations primarily targeted coexisting conditions (56% ASD; 93% ID), whereas core symptoms received much less attention (26% ASD).

Conclusions

Clinical practice guidelines reviewed for ASD and ID primarily contained recommendations based on expert opinion, with the plurality of recommendations relating to pharmacologic treatment. Vital next steps include identifying relevant interventions for inclusion in the WHO Package and continuing to conduct rigorous intervention research, particularly on core symptoms of these conditions, to extend recommendations for high-quality guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Wickstrom J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8463470 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUp to 50% of individuals diagnosed with depression are known to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The aim of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and/or management of depression in adults using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify depression guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018. The Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. Eligible guidelines published by non-profit agencies on treatment of depression for adults were assessed with the AGREE II instrument twice, once for the overall guideline and once for the CAM sections.ResultsFrom 931 unique search results, 19 guidelines mentioned CAM, of which 16 made CAM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were as follows (overall, CAM section): clarity of presentation (87.0, 66.1%), scope and purpose (80.9, 77.6%), stakeholder involvement (62.0, 44.3%), editorial independence (61.6, 61.6%), rigour of development (58.0, 52.0%), and applicability (42.2, 25.4%). Quality varied within and across guidelines. Only 1 of 16 guidelines was recommended without modifications for both its overall and CAM sections by both appraisers.ConclusionsThere are multiple depression guidelines containing CAM recommendations available and there are a comprehensive set of CAM therapy options for depression. The quality of guidelines varied within and across guidelines and the quality of CAM recommendations was generally lower than the overall recommendations in the guidelines for all domains except editorial independence. Generally, characteristics of guidelines, including the year of publication and region of development varied across the guidelines irrespective of quality. Guidelines with higher AGREE II scores can serve as a guide to facilitate communication between patients and medical professionals regarding CAM use for depression, while guidelines with lower scores could be improved in future updates using the AGREE II instrument as a guide.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, 3 billion people suffer from either migraine or tension-type headache disorder over their lifetime. Approximately 50% of American adults suffering from headache or migraine have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, the quality and quantity of recommendations associated with such therapies across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of these conditions are unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of such CAM recommendations.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched for eligible CPGs. CPGs were included if they provided any therapy recommendations. Eligible CPGs included those written for adult patients with headache and migraine; CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice for quality using the AGREE II instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections.ResultsOf 486 unique search results, 21 CPGs were eligible and quality assessed; fifteen CPGs mentioned CAM, of which 13 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG assessment yielded higher scaled domain percentages than the CAM section across all domains. The results from highest to lowest were as follows (overall, CAM): clarity of presentation (66.7% vs. 50.0%), scope and purpose (63.9% vs. 61.1%), stakeholder involvement (22.2% vs. 13.9%), rigour of development (13.5% vs. 9.4%), applicability (6.3% vs. 0.0%), and editorial independence (0.0% vs. 0.0%).ConclusionsOf the eligible CPGs, the CAM sections were of lower quality compared to the overall recommendations across all domains of the AGREE II instrument. CPGs that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CAM therapies in the context of headache and migraine.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine if, and to what extent, published clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of chronic tinnitus vary in their recommendations.DesignSystematic review of guidelines.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE and GIN electronic databases were searched in March 2022 and the search was updated in June 2023.Eligibility criteriaWe included clinical practice guidelines that gave recommendations on the treatment of tinnitus. No language restrictions were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted the data and used the AGREE checklist to report on reporting.ResultsA total of 10 guidelines were identified and included, published between 2011 and 2021. Recommendations for 13 types of tinnitus treatments were compared. Large differences in guideline development and methodology were found. Seven of the 10 guidelines included a systematic search of the literature to identify the available evidence. Six of the 10 guidelines used a framework for the development of the guideline. Reporting was poor in multiple guidelines. Counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy were the only treatments that were recommended for treating tinnitus associated distress by all guidelines that reported on these topics. Tinnitus retraining therapy, sound therapy, hearing aids and cochlear implantation were not unanimously recommended either due to the lack of evidence, a high risk of bias or judgement of no beneficial effect of the specific treatment.ConclusionsThere were notable differences with respect to whether guidelines considered the available evidence sufficient enough to make a recommendation. Notably, we identified substantial differences in the rigour of guideline design and development. Reporting was poor in many guidelines. Future guidelines could benefit from the use of reporting tools to improve reporting and transparency and the inclusion of guideline experts and patients to improve the quality of clinical practice guidelines on tinnitus.