scholarly journals The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: 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 ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

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 The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: 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 ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

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 The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: 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 ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

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 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 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.

scholarly journals CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES: A STRATEGY FOR EVALUATING PERCEPTION AND QUALITY

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zendy-Estefany Carmargo-Cardona ◽  
Andres Bernal-Ballen ◽  
Jose-Leonardo Cely-Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are recommendations based on a systematic review of scientific evidence and generally these documents are under constant assess. For this matter, a group of health-professionals which belong to Fundación Centro Colombiano de Hipoterapia evaluated the use and quality of the used CPG using AGREE II instrument. The obtained results evidence correlation between both parameters since health-professionals trust in their acquired experience without detracting from the benefits that can be obtained with the use of guidelines. Among the mentioned benefits, improving the quality of care, effectiveness in clinical decisions, and the optimization of costs related to health care can be mentioned. Nonetheless, health-professionals reflect uncertainty in the recommendations generated by the guidelines because of the barriers presented such as strictness in its elaboration, it lacks in updates, audits and evaluations. Key words: Clinical practice guidelines, assessment, quality.

scholarly journals Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of COVID-19: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thanansayan Dhivagaran ◽  
Umaima Abbas ◽  
Fahad Rasool Butt ◽  
Luckshann Arunasalam ◽  
Oswin Chang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Agree Ii Instrument

Abstract 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 the 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. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science will be searched from December 2019 up to December 2020. 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. 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 ‌Registration‌ ‌International‌ ‌Prospective‌ ‌Register‌ ‌for‌ ‌Systematic‌ ‌Reviews‌ ‌(PROSPERO)‌ ‌—‌ ‌CRD42020219944

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document