scholarly journals Antenatal magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection: a critical appraisal and systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 262-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pradeep M. Jayaram ◽  
Manoj K. Mohan ◽  
Ibrahim Farid ◽  
Stephen Lindow
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Fetal Neuroprotection ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

Abstract Background Magnesium sulfate is an accepted intervention for fetal neuroprotection. There are some perceived differences in the international recommendations on the use magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection in preterm labor. Content This systematic review analyses the available clinical guidelines for the use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection and compares the recommendations, and assesses the quality of guidelines. This provides the consensus, differences and explores the areas for future collaborative research. We searched databases of PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, Web of Science, LILACS; and included the national and the international clinical practice guidelines. We included seven guidelines out of 227 search results. We evaluated the methodological quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and systematically extracted guideline characters, recommendation and supporting evidence base. Summary Five guidelines were of high quality and two were of moderate quality. One guideline achieved more than an 80% score in all the domains of AGREE II tool. All guidelines recommend use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection. However, there are differences in other recommendations such as upper gestational age, dose, duration, repeating treatment and use of additional tocolytics. Outlook Future guidelines should include recommendations on all aspects of magnesium sulfate therapy for fetal neuroprotection. Future research and international collaboration should focus on areas where there are no international consensual recommendations.

scholarly journals An appraisal of the Australian Resuscitation Council arrhythmia guideline

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter F Fouche ◽  
Kristina Zverinova
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Guideline ◽  
Significant Health ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

IntroductionArrhythmias are a significant health burden in Australia, responsible for about 1% of deaths annually. The Australian Resuscitation Council (ARC) ‘Guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias’ was designed to guide doctors, paramedics and nurses in the emergency management of arrhythmias. It is important to have high quality clinical practice guidelines to aid the treatment of these arrhythmias. The AGREE II tool utilised is widely used to asses clinical practice guidelines for quality. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the ARC clinical practice guideline ‘Guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias’.MethodsTwo raters assessed the six domains of quality of the ARC arrhythmia guideline using the AGREE II tool. The inter-rater agreement between the raters was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2, 1).ResultsInter-rater agreement was good at 0.73 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). Both raters assigned the ARC guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias a score of three, for a combined score of three out of a possible seven on the AGREE II rating scale.ConclusionsThe use of the ARC guideline 11.9 Managing Acute Dysrhythmias is not recommended based on this assessment with the AGREE II tool. Emergency departments and prehospital systems should consider not using this arrhythmia guideline to guide their practice, but to look elsewhere for a higher quality guideline.

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care: a systematic review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Tapia-López Elena ◽  
Virgilio Sacha ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Lucas Perelli ◽  
Hernán Cohen-Arazi ◽  
GErmán Solioz ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background : The aim of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management of difficult airway is to provide optimal responses to a potentially life-threatening clinical problem.Objective : to summarize and compare relevant recommendations and algorithms from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).Methods : We conducted a systematic review (overview) of CPGs, following Cochrane methods. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. In July 2018, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We included those EB-CPGs reporting standard methods for identification, data collection, study risk of bias assessment and recommendations’ level of evidence. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.Results: We included 11 EB-CPGs out of 2505 references identified in literature searches within the last ten years. Only three of them used the GRADE system. The domains with better performance in the AGREE-II assessment, were ‘adequate description of scoping’ and ‘objectives’ while those with worst performance were ‘‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’. As a result, only three EB-CPGs were classified as ‘Highly recommended, two as ‘Recommended’ and six as ‘Not recommended. We summarized 22 diagnostic recommendations, 22% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were considered by developers as strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (76% strong). Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years.Conclusions : The main EB-CPGs in the management of difficult airway in anesthesia presented significant heterogeneity in terms of their quality and system of grading the evidence and strength of recommendation used, and most used their own systems. We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

scholarly journals Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the management of COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thanansayan Dhivagaran ◽  
Umaima Abbas ◽  
Fahad Butt ◽  
Luckshann Arunasalam ◽  
Oswin Chang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
World Health ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Abstract Background In 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. Methods The 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. Discussion The 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 registration International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)—CRD42020219944

scholarly journals International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e048943
Author(s):  
Sara Dahlen ◽  
Dean Connolly ◽  
Isra Arif ◽  
Muhammad Hyder Junejo ◽  
Susan Bewley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Gender Minority ◽  
Assessment Scores ◽  
Trans People ◽  
Wide Range

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.

scholarly journals AGREEing on Nutritional Management of Patients with CKD—A Quality Appraisal of the Available Guidelines

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 624
Author(s):  
Dimitra Rafailia Bakaloudi ◽  
Lydia Chrysoula ◽  
Kalliopi Anna Poulia ◽  
Evangelia Dounousi ◽  
Vassilios Liakopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Public Health Issue ◽  
Nutritional Management ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important public health issue with increasing prevalence worldwide. Several clinical practice guidelines have been recently published regarding the nutritional management of CKD patients. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the quality of the published guidelines and provide recommendation for future updates. PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched for relevant guidelines and 11 clinical practice guidelines were finally included. Guidelines developed by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral nutrition (ASPEN), the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA), the German Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM), the European Best Practice Guidelines (EBPG), the European Dialysis and Transplantation Nurses Association-European Renal Care Association (EDTNA-ERCA), the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the Andalusian Group for Nutrition Reflection and Investigation (GARIN) group, the National Kidney foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI), the Italian Society of Nephrology-Association of Dieticians-Italian Association of Hemodialysis, Dialysis and Transplant (SIN-ANDID-ANED), and the Renal Association were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. Guidelines by KDOQI, ESPEN, and DAA were of moderate quality and the rest of them were low-quality guidelines. Our study demonstrates gaps related to the development of guidelines and therefore greater emphasis on methodological approaches is recommended. AGREE II tool can be useful to improve quality of guidelines.

Systematic review and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on pelvic organ prolapse using the AGREE II tool

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Tsiapakidou ◽  
Christiana Campani Nygaard ◽  
Gabriele Falconi ◽  
Janna Pape ◽  
Cornelia Betschart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

scholarly journals Systematic review of global clinical practice guidelines for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040182
Author(s):  
Meng Zhang ◽  
Jun Tang ◽  
Yang He ◽  
Wenxing Li ◽  
Zhong Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Neonatal Hyperbilirubinemia ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

ObjectiveHyperbilirubinemia is one of the most common clinical symptoms in newborns. To improve patient outcomes, evidence-based and implementable guidelines are required. However, clinical guidelines may vary in quality, criteria and recommendations among regions and countries. In this study, we aimed to systematically assess the quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE)-II instrument and summarise the specific recommendations for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia in order to provide suggestions for future guideline development.DesignSystematic review.InterventionsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Medline and guideline databases for relevant articles on 10 April 2020. The studies were screened by two independent reviewers according to our inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted the descriptive data. Four appraisers assessed the guidelines using the AGREE-II instrument.ResultsOur systematic review appraised 12 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. The 12 guidelines achieved an average score of 36%–89%. The guidelines received the highest scores for clarity of presentation and lowest scores for rigour of development. Most recommendations for diagnosis were relatively consistent, but recommendations regarding risk factors, the initiating threshold of treatment and pharmacotherapy varied.ConclusionsOur study revealed that current guidelines vary in the quality of the developing process and are inconsistent with regards to recommendations. Future guidelines should afford more attention to the quality of methodologies in guideline development, and more qualified evidence is needed to standardise the initiating threshold of treatment for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document