scholarly journals Adherence to the RIGHT statement in Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol 121 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-24
Author(s):  
Mostafa Khattab ◽  
Benjamin Howard ◽  
Shafiq Al-Rifai ◽  
Trevor Torgerson ◽  
Matt Vassar
Keyword(s):  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Right

Abstract Context The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) Statement was developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts to improve reporting quality and transparency in clinical practice guideline development. Objective To assess the quality of reporting in clinical practice guidelines put forth by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) and their adherence to the RIGHT statement checklist. Methods In March 2018, using the 22 criteria listed in the RIGHT statement, two researchers independently documented adherence to each item for all eligible guidelines listed by the SIR by reading through each guideline and using the RIGHT statement elaboration and explanation document as a guide to determine if each item was appropriately addressed as listed in the checklist. To qualify for inclusion in this study, each guideline must have met the strict definition for a clinical practice guideline as set forth by the National Institute of Health and the Institute of Medicine, meaning they were informed by a systematic review of evidence and intended to direct patient care and physician decisions. Guidelines were excluded if they were identified as consensus statements, position statements, reporting standards, and training standards or guidelines. After exclusion criteria were applied, the two researchers scored each of the remaining clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using a prespecified abstraction Google form that reflected the RIGHT statement checklist (22 criteria; 35 items inclusive of subset questions). Each item on the abstraction form consisted of a “yes/no” option; each item on the RIGHT checklist was recorded as “yes” if it was included in the guideline and “no” if it was not. Each checklist item was weighed equally. Partial adherence to checklist items was recorded as “no.” Data were extracted into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation) for statistical analysis. Results The initial search results yielded 129 CPGs in the following areas: 13 of the guidelines were in the field of interventional oncology; 16 in neurovascular disorders; five in nonvascular interventions; four in pediatrics; 25 in peripheral, arterial, and aortic disease; one in cardiac; one in portal and mesenteric vascular disease; 37 in practice development and safety; three in spine and musculoskeletal disorders; 14 in venous disease; five in renal failure/hemodialysis; and five in women’s health. Of the 46 guidelines deemed eligible for evaluation by the RIGHT checklist, 12 of the checklist items showed less than 25% adherence and 13 showed more than 75% adherence. Of 35 individual RIGHT statement checklist items, adherence was found for a mean (SD) of 22.9 items (16.3). The median number of items with adherence was 21 (interquartile range, 7.5–38). Conclusion The quality of reporting in interventional radiology guidelines is lacking in several key areas, including whether patient preferences were considered, whether costs and resources were considered, the strength of the recommendations, and the certainty of the body of evidence. Poor adherence to the RIGHT statement checklist in these guidelines reveals many areas for improvement in guideline reporting.

scholarly journals Reporting Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines Regarding Gout and Hyperuricemia According to the Right Checklist

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Can Wang ◽  
Xufei Luo ◽  
Maichao Li ◽  
Lingling Cui ◽  
Xinde Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Rate ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
The Right

Abstract Objectives The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of 2009–2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) regarding gout and hyperuricemia, aimed to improve the reporting quality of future guidelines.Methods We searched PubMed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the Wan Fang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for relevant guidelines. We also searched the websites of guideline development organizations (the Guidelines International Network, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism) (EULAR). Furthermore, supplementary guidelines reported in included articles were systematically searched, as well as Medlive and Google Scholar. Results Seventeen guidelines were included, of which one was in Chinese and 16 were in English. The mean reporting rate of the 35 items specified was 14.9 (42.5%), only five CPGs (29.4%) had a reporting rate >50%. Of the 35 items, three were very frequently reported. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (Basic information, Background, Evidence, Recommendations, Review and quality assurance, Funding and declaration and management of interests, and Other information) were 64.7%, 36.8%, 50.6% 50.6%, 42.9%, 8.82%, 33.8%, and 31.4%, respectively.Conclusion The reporting quality of the present guidelines for gout and hyperuricemia is relatively poor. We suggest that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be used by CPG developers to ensure higher reporting quality of future guidelines.

scholarly journals Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Adult Overweight and Obesity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphanie B Mayer ◽  
Sky Graybill ◽  
Susan D Raffa ◽  
Christopher Tracy ◽  
Earl Gaar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Veterans Health Administration ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Veterans Health ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT Introduction In May of 2020, the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Department of Defense (DoD) approved a new joint clinical practice guideline for assessing and managing patients who have overweight and obesity. This guideline is intended to give healthcare teams a framework by which to screen, evaluate, treat, and manage the individual needs and preferences of VA and DoD patients who may have either of these conditions. It can be accessed at https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/CD/obesity/. Materials and Methods In January of 2019, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine’s tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. Results The guideline panel developed 12 key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, created a 1-page algorithm, and advanced 18 recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Conclusions This synopsis summarizes the key recommendations of the guideline regarding management of overweight and obesity, including referral to comprehensive lifestyle interventions that combine behavioral, dietary, and physical activity change, and additional tools of pharmacologic and procedural interventions. Additionally, recommendations based on evidence found in the literature for short-term weight loss are included. A clinical practice algorithm that is part of the guideline is also included. Additional materials, such as provider and patient summaries and a provider pocket card, are also available for public use, accessible at the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) website listed above.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Level of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations Constituting the American Academy of Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney Cook ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Taylor Rogers ◽  
Jake Checketts ◽  
Sanjeev Musuvathy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Weak Evidence

BACKGROUND Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based recommendations used by physicians to improve patient care. These guidelines provide the physician with an assessment of the benefits and harms of a treatment and its alternatives. Therefore, it is essential that the clinical practice guidelines be based on the strongest available evidence. Numerous studies in a variety of different fields of medicine have demonstrated that recommendations supported by weak evidence are a common theme in clinical practice guidelines. A clinical guideline based solely on weak evidence has the capability to reduce the quality of care provided by physicians. OBJECTIVE Our primary objective is to evaluate the levels of evidence supporting the recommendations constituting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines. METHODS Using a cross-sectional study design, authors SM and RO located all current clinical practice guidelines on the American Academy of Dermatology website on June 10, 2017, and December 11, 2019. Each recommendation and its corresponding evidence rating were extracted in a duplicate and blinded fashion. A consensus meeting was planned a priori to resolve disagreements in extractions or stratifications. RESULTS In total, 6 clinical guidelines and their subsections were screened and 899 recommendations were identified. Our final data set included 841 recommendations, as 58 recommendations contained no level of evidence and were excluded from calculations. Many recommendations were supported by a moderate level of evidence and therefore received a B rating (346/841, 41.1%). Roughly one-third of the recommendations were supported by a strong level of evidence and were given an A rating (n=307, 36.5%). The clinical practice guideline with the highest overall strength of evidence was regarding the treatment of acne, which had 17 of 35 (48.6%) recommendations supported by strong evidence and only 2 (5.7%) supported by weak evidence. The clinical practice guideline with the fewest recommendations supported by strong evidence was melanoma (13/63, 20.6%). CONCLUSIONS Clinical practice guidelines that lack strong supporting evidence could negatively affect patient care, and dermatologists should be mindful that not all recommendations are supported by the strongest level of evidence. An increased quantity of quality research needs to be performed in the field of dermatology to improve the evidence supporting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer using the RIGHT checklist

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Kefeng Liu ◽  
Yanfang Ma ◽  
Yongjie Yang ◽  
Jingli Lu ◽  
Jie Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Level of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations Constituting the American Academy of Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Cross-Sectional Analysis

10.2196/17370 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e17370
Author(s):  
Courtney Cook ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Taylor Rogers ◽  
Jake Checketts ◽  
Sanjeev Musuvathy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Weak Evidence

Background Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based recommendations used by physicians to improve patient care. These guidelines provide the physician with an assessment of the benefits and harms of a treatment and its alternatives. Therefore, it is essential that the clinical practice guidelines be based on the strongest available evidence. Numerous studies in a variety of different fields of medicine have demonstrated that recommendations supported by weak evidence are a common theme in clinical practice guidelines. A clinical guideline based solely on weak evidence has the capability to reduce the quality of care provided by physicians. Objective Our primary objective is to evaluate the levels of evidence supporting the recommendations constituting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, authors SM and RO located all current clinical practice guidelines on the American Academy of Dermatology website on June 10, 2017, and December 11, 2019. Each recommendation and its corresponding evidence rating were extracted in a duplicate and blinded fashion. A consensus meeting was planned a priori to resolve disagreements in extractions or stratifications. Results In total, 6 clinical guidelines and their subsections were screened and 899 recommendations were identified. Our final data set included 841 recommendations, as 58 recommendations contained no level of evidence and were excluded from calculations. Many recommendations were supported by a moderate level of evidence and therefore received a B rating (346/841, 41.1%). Roughly one-third of the recommendations were supported by a strong level of evidence and were given an A rating (n=307, 36.5%). The clinical practice guideline with the highest overall strength of evidence was regarding the treatment of acne, which had 17 of 35 (48.6%) recommendations supported by strong evidence and only 2 (5.7%) supported by weak evidence. The clinical practice guideline with the fewest recommendations supported by strong evidence was melanoma (13/63, 20.6%). Conclusions Clinical practice guidelines that lack strong supporting evidence could negatively affect patient care, and dermatologists should be mindful that not all recommendations are supported by the strongest level of evidence. An increased quantity of quality research needs to be performed in the field of dermatology to improve the evidence supporting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.

Using AGREE II Reporting Checklist to Evaluate the Quality of Tuina Clinical Practice Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Huang ◽  
Yue Zhang ◽  
Chuyu Huang ◽  
Mingwang Qiu ◽  
Siyi Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Search Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

Abstract Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of Tuina clinical practice guidelines. Methods Computer searches of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases were conducted to search for published guidelines on Tuina, with a search time frame from database creation to March 2021. Four evaluators independently used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines.Results Eight guidelines related to Tuina were included in this study. The quality of reporting was low in all included guidelines. The highest quality report had a total score of 404 and was rated as "highly recommended". The worst guideline had a final score of 241 and was rated as "not recommended". Overall, 25% of the included guidelines were recommended for clinical use, 37.5% were recommended after revision, and 37.5% were not recommended for use.Conclusion The number of existing Tuina clinical practice guidelines is limited. The methodological quality is low, far from the internationally accepted norms of clinical practice guideline development and reporting. In the future development of Tuina guidelines, emphasis should be placed on the reporting specifications of guidelines and the methodology of guideline development, including the rigor of the guideline development process, the clarity, application, and independence of reporting, to improve the quality and applicability of clinical practice guidelines, to guide and standardize the clinical practice of Tuina.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document