Dataset Information

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for perioperative care and use of GRADE: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Perioperative care is a broad field covering an array of elective and emergency procedures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for perioperative care exist with various degrees of methodological quality. We intend to critically appraise them using AGREE II instrument and investigate the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

Methods and analysis

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PROSPERO and did not identify any similar systematic review in this area. We will search databases, repositories and websites of guideline developers and medical societies, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), DynaMed, the GIN international guideline library and registry of guidelines in development, BIGG international database of GRADE guidelines, ECRI Guideline Trust or National Institute for Clinical Evidence to identify all CPGs for perioperative care in an adult population in a general clinical setting. We will include CPGs, expert guidance, position papers, guidance documents and consensus statements published in the last 5 years by experts or international organisations that provide guidance or recommendations in the available full text with no geographical or language limitation. Excluded will be those containing only good practice statements. Two independent reviewers will perform critical appraisal using the AGREE II tool. The data presented in a narrative and tabular form will include the results of the critical appraisal for all identified CPGs for all AGREE II domains and an assessment of the use of the GRADE approach.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not required. We will disseminate the findings through professional networks and conference presentations and will publish the results.

SUBMITTER: Kantorova L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8671973 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are being developed and implemented in order to improve clinical practice related to the detection and treatment of CKD. The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs regarding the CKD and to examine whether there are factors which influence their quality.MethodsA systematic search was conducted to identify all CPGs regarding the early diagnosis and treatment of CKD. The CPGs quality were evaluated by three reviewers using the AGREE II instrument to decide if the guidelines are recommended for their use in clinical practice.ResultsIn total, 13 CPGs were identified: five from America, six from Europe, one from Asia, and one from Oceania. Five CPGs were recommended for their use in clinical practice; since all their domains achieved the medium or high category. Furthermore, six CPGs were recommended with modifications, as the stakeholders' involvement, applicability, and editorial independence domains were evaluated as low category. These domains, as well as the rigor of the development domain, reached the very low category in those CPGs that were not recommended for its use in clinical practice. In all CPGs, the domains with the lowest average were the stakeholder involvement and the applicability. When comparing the domains of the CPGs according to the origin, type of developer group, the checklist used during the development and the publication period, a significantly higher average in the domain stakeholder involvement was found in the CPGs from Asia and Oceania compared to the ones in Latin America. Additionally, a significantly higher average in the applicability domain was found in the CPGs developed by CPGs developer organizations compared to those developed by medical societies.ConclusionsIn total, 85% of the CPGs regarding CKD were recommended or recommended with modifications. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains are assessed in the low category, which might affect the CPGs implementation. In order to save resources in low- and middle-income countries, an adaptation of the recommended CPGs should be considered.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding healthcare of gender minority/trans people.DesignSystematic review and quality appraisal using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool), including stakeholder domain prioritisation.SettingSix databases and six CPG websites were searched, and international key opinion leaders approached.ParticipantsCPGs relating to adults and/or children who are gender minority/trans with no exclusions due to comorbidities, except differences in sex development.InterventionAny health-related intervention connected to the care of gender minority/trans people.Main outcome measuresNumber and quality of international CPGs addressing the health of gender minority/trans people, information on estimated changes in mortality or quality of life (QoL), consistency of recommended interventions across CPGs, and appraisal of key messages for patients.ResultsTwelve international CPGs address gender minority/trans people's healthcare as complete (n=5), partial (n=4) or marginal (n=3) focus of guidance. The quality scores have a wide range and heterogeneity whichever AGREE II domain is prioritised. Five higher-quality CPGs focus on HIV and other blood-borne infections (overall assessment scores 69%-94%). Six lower-quality CPGs concern transition-specific interventions (overall assessment scores 11%-56%). None deal with primary care, mental health or longer-term medical issues. Sparse information on estimated changes in mortality and QoL is conflicting. Consistency between CPGs could not be examined due to unclear recommendations within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 7 and a lack of overlap between other CPGs. None provide key messages for patients.ConclusionsA paucity of high-quality guidance for gender minority/trans people exists, largely limited to HIV and transition, but not wider aspects of healthcare, mortality or QoL. Reference to AGREE II, use of systematic reviews, independent external review, stakeholder participation and patient facing material might improve future CPG quality.Prospero registration numberCRD42019154361.

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.

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:BACKGROUND:Quality indicators (QIs) are used in assessing the quality of healthcare. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating QIs. In this context, QIs are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations. However, the methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development vary considerably. In Germany, the guideline classification scheme of the AWMF (German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) differentiates between S1-, S2k-, S2e-, and S3-CPGs depending on the methodological approach. Thus, S3-CPGs are consensus- and evidence-based CPGs and have the highest methodological standard in Germany. An analysis of the status quo of reported QIs in S3-CPGs found 35 current S3-CPGs, which report 372 different QIs. Currently, there is no gold standard for the development of guideline-based QIs. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated to what extent guideline-based QIs from different CPGs that are related to the same topic are consistent. The objective of this study is to compare guideline-based QIs and their underlying methodological approaches of German S3-CPGs with those of topic-related international CPGs. METHODS:Based on the previous identified German S3-CPGs (n?=?35), which report quality indicators, we will conduct systematic searches in the guidelines databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) to identify international CPGs matching the topics of the S3-CPGs. If necessary, we will search additionally the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We will include evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs as well as methods of development and the rationale for QIs will be extracted and compared with those of the S3-CPGs. DISCUSSION:This study will be part of the project "Systematic analysis of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators and development of an evidence- and consensus-based standard," supported by the German Research Association (DFG). The results of this analysis will feed into a subsequent qualitative study, which will consist of structured interviews with developers of international CPGs. Further, the results will be considered in a consensus study on standards of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators in Germany.

Project description:Background: The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EB-CPGs) has increasing global growth; however, the certainty of impact on patients and health systems, as well as the magnitude of the impact, is not apparent. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of EB-CPGs for the improvement of the quality of health care in three dimensions: structure, process and results in the patient for the management of cardiovascular disease. Methods: We followed the methods described by the Cochrane Handbook and present a descriptive analysis because of the high heterogeneity found across the included studies. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, between 1990 and June 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were selected. Three authors independently carried out the data extraction, using a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care form. Results: Of the total of 84 interventions included in the nine RCTs evaluated, three (4%) were related to health care structure, 54 (64%) to the health care delivery process and 27 (32%) to patient outcomes. Regarding the impact of using the EB-CPGs, in 55 interventions (65%), there were no significant differences between control and experimental groups. In four interventions (5%), the result favoured the control group, and the result favoured the intervention group on 25 of the interventions (30%). Conclusions: This systematic review showed that EB-CPGs could be useful to improve the process and structure of health care and, to a lesser extent, to improve the patients' outcomes. After analysing many studies, we could have one more hypothesis for further research, which could shed more light upon those undiscovered variables that might interfere with the use of the EB-CPGs. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42013003589.

Project description:Acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are authoritative medical recommendations developed by evaluating and integrating acupuncture-related evidence. However, their synthesis and dissemination are not integrated, and clinical practitioners require more credible effective evidence. The study aim was to systematically review problems disseminating acupuncture clinical practice guidelines to clinical practitioners, to facilitate evidence dissemination. This systematic review included searches of PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and four major Chinese electronic databases (CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Database, and SinoMed) from inception to October 26, 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted information, and evaluated the quality of included studies. A systematic review was subsequently performed. Eleven studies were reviewed: nine (81.8%) cross-sectional surveys and two (18.2%) systematic reviews. The evaluated clinical practice guidelines differed across studies; seven studies (63.6%) evaluated guidelines for a specific disease, one (9.1%) evaluated guidelines for acupuncture therapies (e.g., moxibustion and fire acupuncture), one (9.1%) evaluated US acupuncture guidelines and recommendations, and two (18.2%) did not describe the guideline content. The included studies used different evaluation indicators. Guideline dissemination problems included lack of guideline standardization, unclear target population, mismatch between guidelines and application environment, lack of reliable health economics evaluation, poor quality content of the recommendations, lack of linkage between recommendations and evidence, and disassociation of recommendations from clinical practice et al. The development and publishing of credible acupuncture clinical practice guidelines is urgently needed to improve the usability of guidelines and standardize and disseminate tools for analysing information to clinical practitioners and to help the domestic and international acupuncture community to apply evidence to practice. Recommendations for promoting the dissemination of acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are to define clinical events suitable for the target population, to develop recommendations relevant to clinical practice, to improve the evidence evaluation index system, and to further standardize the method and process of formulating guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a multifaceted neurodevelopmental disorder requiring multimodal intervention and an army of multidisciplinary teams for a proper rehabilitation plan. Accordingly, multiple practice guidelines have been published for different disciplines. However, systematic evidence to detect and intervene must be updated regularly. Our main objective is to compare and summarize the recommendations made in the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for ASD in children released from November 2015 to March 2022.MethodsCPGs were subjected to a systematic review. We developed the inclusion and exclusion criteria and health-related questions, then searched and screened for CPGs utilizing bibliographic and CPG databases. Each of the CPGs used in the study were critically evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. In a realistic comparison table, we summarized the recommendations.ResultsFour eligible CPGs were appraised: Australian Autism CRC (ACRC); Ministry of Health New Zealand (NZ); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Healthcare Improvement Scotland (SIGN-HIS). The overall assessments of all four CPGs scored greater than 80%; these findings were consistent with the high scores in the six domains of AGREE II, including: (1) scope and purpose, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) rigor of development, (4) clarity of presentation, (5) applicability, and (6) editorial independence domains. Domain (3) scored 84%, 93%, 86%, and 85%; domain (5) 92%, 89%, 54%, and 85%; and domain (6) 92%, 96%, 88%, and 92% for ACRC, NICE, NZ, and SIGN-HIS, respectively. Overall, there were no serious conflicts between the clinical recommendations of the four CPGs, but some were more comprehensive and elaborative than others.ConclusionsAll four assessed evidence-based CPGs demonstrated high methodological quality and relevance for use in practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Migrants may carry with them communicable and non communicable diseases as they move to the host country. Screening migrants may help in improving their health status and in preventing the spread of infections to the host population. OBJECTIVE:To identify and assess the quality of published practice guidelines addressing migrants' health. METHODS:We included practice guidelines addressing migrants' health at the clinical, public health or health systems levels. We searched Medline, Embase, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the Canadian Medical Association's Clinical Practice Guidelines Database. Two teams of two reviewers conducted in duplicate and independent manner study selection, data abstraction, assessment of the guideline quality (using the AGREE II instrument), and assessment of the quality of the reporting (using the RIGHT statement). RESULTS:Out of 2732 citations captured by the electronic search, we included 24 eligible practice guidelines, all addressing the level of post-arrival to the host country and published between 2011 and 2017. The majority of guidelines (57%) addressed non-communicable diseases, 95% addressed screening, while 52% addressed prevention and treatment respectively. The majority of the guidelines reported their funding sources. 86% used the GRADE approach as part of the development process. The included guidelines scored high on the majority of the items, and low on the following two domains of the AGREE II instrument: rigor of development and applicability. The mean number of the RIGHT checklist items met by the included guidelines was 27, out of a total of 35. Most of the guidelines were based on systematic reviews (95.6%). A minority of the included guidelines (26%) reported considering the values and preferences of the target populations or the costs and resource implications (30%) in the formulation of recommendations. CONCLUSION:We identified 23 practice guidelines addressing migrants' health, the majority of which addressed screening services. The vast majority of the captured guidelines targeted screening because the population of interest is migrants, meaning that the intention of the guidelines is to deal with additional factors than usual ones, such as prevalence of disease in country of origin, endemic diseases and others. The guidelines suffered limitations on two quality domains (rigor of development and applicability), and have room for improvement of their reporting.