Dataset Information

Systematic Identification and Critical Appraisal of Pediatric COVID-19 Guidelines Applicable in India.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically identify and critically appraise the methodological quality of pediatric guidelines applicable to management of COVID-19 in India.

Methods

Pediatric COVID-19 guidelines applicable to India, published until 30 April 2021, were identified through a systematic search across ten databases. Each was critically appraised for methodological quality using the AGREE-II tool, by at least two appraisers. Median (interquartile range) of the total score and domain-wise scores were calculated, and compared for Indian vs. foreign guidelines, updated vs. original versions of guidelines, and those developed earlier vs. later in the pandemic.

Results

A total of 62 guidelines was identified. Only 8 (12.9%) were published in India. The overall AGREE-II score ranged from 4.7% to 72.8%; with median (IQR) 37.9% (29.4, 48.6). This suggested overall low(er) methodological quality. The median (IQR) domain-wise scores were as follows: Scope and Purpose 66.7% (58.3, 83.3), Stakeholder Involvement 41.7% (30.6, 83.3), Rigor of Development 23.4% (14.8, 37.5), Clarity of Presentation 59.7% (50.0, 75.0), Applicability 27.1% (18.8, 33.3), and Editorial Independence 8.3% (0.0, 45.8). This suggested diversity in quality of different aspects of the guidelines, with very low quality in the critical domain of methodological rigor. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall scores of Indian vs. foreign guidelines, updated versions vs. original versions, and those developed earlier vs. later in the pandemic.

Conclusion

The currently available pediatric COVID-19 guidelines have low methodological quality, adversely affecting their credibility, validity, and applicability. Urgent corrective strategies are presented for consideration.

SUBMITTER: Singhal KK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8767361 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:Background Tobacco use is a leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of tobacco use dependence are of varied scope and quality, making it challenging for users to select and apply recommendations. Objective The study objective is to identify and critically appraise the quality of existing clinical practice guidelines for tobacco cessation. Setting The study occurred between collaborative academic institutions located in Qatar and New Zealand. Methods A systematic literature search was performed for the period 2006-2018 through the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, National Guideline Clearing House, Campbell Library, Health System Evidence, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice Database, Academic Search Complete, ProQuest, PROSPERO, and Google Scholar. Relevant professional societies' and health agencies' websites were also searched. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed guidelines' quality using Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Main outcome measure Standardized domain scores according to the AGREE II instrument. Results 7741 hits were identified. After removing duplicates and screening, 24 guidelines were included. Highest guideline quality was for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline with an overall ranking score of 87.56% and least quality was for Japanese Circulation Society Joint Working Group with an overall score of 29.34%. Domain 4 of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) had the highest average quality score (70.95%), while the lowest average quality scores were for Domain 2 (Rigour of Development) (50.21%) and Domain 5 (Applicability) (45.05%). Conclusion Seven guidelines were judged to be of high quality (overall score of ≥ 70%). Future guidelines for tobacco dependence treatment should use rigorous methods of development and provide applicable recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundDeaths due to prescription opioid overdoses have increased dramatically. High-quality guidelines could help clinicians mitigate risks associated with opioid therapy.PurposeTo evaluate the quality and content of guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain.Data sourcesMEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, specialty society Web sites, and international guideline clearinghouses (searched in July 2013).Study selectionGuidelines published between January 2007 and July 2013 addressing the use of opioids for chronic pain in adults were selected. Guidelines on specific settings, populations, and conditions were excluded.Data extractionGuidelines and associated systematic reviews were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), respectively, and recommendations for mitigating opioid-related risks were compared.Data synthesisThirteen guidelines met selection criteria. Overall AGREE II scores were 3.00 to 6.20 (on a scale of 1 to 7). The AMSTAR ratings were poor to fair for 10 guidelines. Two received high AGREE II and AMSTAR scores. Most guidelines recommend that clinicians avoid doses greater than 90 to 200 mg of morphine equivalents per day, have additional knowledge to prescribe methadone, recognize risks of fentanyl patches, titrate cautiously, and reduce doses by at least 25% to 50% when switching opioids. Guidelines also agree that opioid risk assessment tools, written treatment agreements, and urine drug testing can mitigate risks. Most recommendations are supported by observational data or expert consensus.LimitationExclusion of non-English-language guidelines and reliance on published information.ConclusionDespite limited evidence and variable development methods, recent guidelines on chronic pain agree on several opioid risk mitigation strategies, including upper dosing thresholds; cautions with certain medications; attention to drug-drug and drug-disease interactions; and use of risk assessment tools, treatment agreements, and urine drug testing. Future research should directly examine the effectiveness of opioid risk mitigation strategies.Primary funding sourceCalifornia Department of Industrial Relations and California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation.

Project description:IntroductionBariatric surgery is the most effective therapeutic option to reduce weight in morbidly obese individuals, but it results in a number of mineral and vitamin deficiencies. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) attempt to balance those benefits and harms to provide guidance to physicians and patients.ObjectivesWe compare and evaluate the quality of the evidence and of the development process of current CPGs that provide recommendations on vitamin D replacement in patients undergoing bariatric surgery, using a validated tool.MethodsWe searched 4 databases, with no time restriction, to identify relevant and current CPGs. Two reviewers assessed eligibility and abstracted data, in duplicate. They evaluated the quality of CPGs development process using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool that consists of 6 domains. A content expert verified those assessments.ResultsWe identified 3 eligible CPGs: (1) the Endocrine Society (ES) guidelines (2010); (2) the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), and the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) guidelines (update 2013); and (3) the Interdisciplinary European (IE) guidelines on Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (latest update 2014). The ES and the AACE/TOS/ASMBS guidelines recommended high doses of vitamin D, varying from 3000IU daily to 50,000IU 1-3 times weekly. Vitamin D doses were not mentioned in the IE guidelines. The recommendations were based on a low quality of evidence, if any, or limited to a single high quality trial, for some outcomes. In terms of quality, only the IE guidelines described their search methodology but none of the CPGs provided details on evidence selection and appraisal. None of the three CPGs rigorously assessed the preferences of the target population, resource implications, and the applicability of these guidelines. According to the AGREE II tool, we rated the ES guidelines as average in quality, and the other two as low in quality.ConclusionCurrent CPGs recommendations on vitamin D supplementation in bariatric surgery differ between societies. They do not fulfill criteria for optimal guideline development, in part possibly due to limited resources, and are based on expert opinion. Thus, the pressing need for high quality randomized trials to inform CPGs, to be developed based on recommended standards.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this review are to: 1) appraise the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) providing pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological intervention recommendations, and 2) summarize the recommendations provided by the included CPGs and compare them where possible.MethodsA systematic search was performed. Three trained appraisers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs using a validated and reliable instrument, the Appraisal of Guidelines in Research and Evaluation II. Six domains were considered: 1) score and purpose; 2) stakeholder involvement; 3) rigor of development; 4) clarity of presentation; 5) applicability; and 6) editorial independence. The domains consist of a total of 23 items each scored on a 7-point scale. High quality CPGs were identified if they had a domain score above 60% in rigor of development, and two other domains.ResultsOf the three included CPGs, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) CPGs were considered to be of high quality, but the German Society for Pediatric Rheumatology was of lower quality. Domains one to four had high domain scores across the guidelines (mean (standard deviation)): 72.76 (13.80); 66.67 (9.81); 64.67 (7.77); and 87.00 (9.64), respectively. Lower scores were obtained for applicability (14.00 (5.57)) and editorial independence (43.44 (7.02)). Recommendations varied across CPGs due to differences in context, target audience (general practitioners, rheumatologists, and other multidisciplinary healthcare professionals) and patients' disease presentations. Despite this variability, progression of pharmacological treatment did not conflict between CPGs. Recommendations for non-pharmacological interventions were vague and the interventions considered varied between CPGs.ConclusionsOverall, recommendations were based on a paucity of evidence and weak study designs. Further research is needed on interventions in JIA, as well as higher quality CPGs to facilitate implementation of the best evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice.