Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Background. Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published. Methods. We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs. Results. We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence. Conclusions. Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.2.22002/v1 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.3.rs-441504/v1 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Are Quality Metrics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Rooted in Substantial Quality Evidence? A Systematic Review

Journal of Crohn s and Colitis ◽

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa123 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Simcha Weissman ◽

Alexander Goldowsky ◽

Tej I Mehta ◽

Michael A Sciarra ◽

Joseph D Feuerstein

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽

Bowel Disease ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Quality Metrics ◽

High Quality ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Inflammatory Bowel ◽

Quality Evidence

Abstract Background and Aims Quality metrics were established to develop standards to help assess quality of care, yet variation in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] clinical practice exists. We performed a systematic review to assess the overall quality of evidence cited in formulating IBD quality metrics. Methods A systematic search was performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. All major national and international IBD societies were included. Quality metrics were assessed for evidence quality and categorised as category A [guideline based], category B [primarily retrospective and observational studies], or category C [expert opinion]. Quality metrics were examined for the type of metric, and the quality, measurability, review, existing conflicts of interest [COI], and patient participation of the metric. Statistical analysis was conducted in R. Results A total of 143 distinct, and an aggregate total of 217 quality metrics were included and analysed; 68%, 3.2%, and 28.6% of IBD quality metrics were based on low, moderate, and high quality of evidence, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence across societies was significantly different [p <0.01]. Five organisations included patients in quality metric development, three reported external review, not all reported measurable outcomes or stated the presence of a COI. Finally, 43% of quality metrics were published more than 5 years ago. Conclusions Quality metrics are important to standardise practice. As more than two-thirds of the quality metrics in IBD are based on low-quality evidence, further studies are needed to improve the overall quality of evidence supporting the development of quality measures.

Download Full-text

The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review

10.21203/rs.2.22002/v4 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review

10.21203/rs.2.22002/v3 ◽

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

Download Full-text

The quality of clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review

10.21203/rs.2.22002/v2 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Ondansetron reduces the incidence of hypotension after spinal anaesthesia in non-caesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Perioperative Practice ◽

10.1177/1750458920964157 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 175045892096415

Author(s):

Tito D Tubog ◽

Richard S Bramble

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Arterial Pressure ◽

Spinal Anaesthesia ◽

Caesarean Delivery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Systolic Arterial Pressure ◽

Incidence Rates ◽

Induced Hypotension ◽

Quality Of Evidence

The incidence rates of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension vary depending on the surgical procedures. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in reducing the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in non-caesarean delivery. Thirteen trials consisting of 1166 patients were included for analysis. Compared to placebo, there is a low quality of evidence that ondansetron was effective in reducing the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.87; p = 0.005) and bradycardia (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; p = 0.02). We also found a moderate quality of evidence that ondansetron lowered the number of rescue ephedrine (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87; p = 0.007). Patients treated with ondansetron have higher mean arterial pressure 15 to 20 minutes after spinal anaesthesia induction and higher systolic arterial pressure 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes after spinal anaesthesia. The evidence suggests that prophylactic administration of ondansetron results in the reduction of the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension, bradycardia and rescue ephedrine in patients undergoing non-caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia.

Download Full-text

Lumbar Roll Usage While Sitting Reduces the Forward Head Posture in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18105171 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (10) ◽

pp. 5171

Author(s):

Yusuke Handa ◽

Kenya Okada ◽

Hiroshi Takasaki

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grade System ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Forward Head Posture ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Head Posture ◽

Head Extension ◽

The Cochrane Library

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the use of a lumbar roll reduced forward head posture (FHP) while sitting among individuals with or without musculoskeletal disorders. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception to August 2020. The quality of evidence for variables used in the meta-analysis was determined using the GRADE system. Five studies satisfied the criteria for data analysis. All studies included individuals without any spinal symptoms. Data from five studies on neck angle showed a statistically significant (p = 0.02) overall effect (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.77), indicating a lesser neck flexion angle while sitting with a lumbar roll than without it. Data from two studies on head angle showed a statistically significant (p = 0.04) overall effect (SMD = 0.47), indicating a lesser head extension angle while sitting with a lumbar roll than without it. In each meta-analysis, the quality of evidence was very low in the GRADE system. The use of a lumbar roll while sitting reduced FHP among individuals without spinal symptoms.

Download Full-text

Effects of electromyographic biofeedback interventions for shoulder pain and function: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Rehabilitation ◽

10.1177/0269215521990950 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 026921552199095

Author(s):

Danilo Harudy Kamonseki ◽

Letícia Bojikian Calixtre ◽

Rodrigo Py Gonçalves Barreto ◽

Paula Rezende Camargo

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Shoulder Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Electromyographic Biofeedback ◽

Mean Differences ◽

And Function

Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness of electromyographic biofeedback interventions to improve pain and function of patients with shoulder pain. Design: Systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Literature search: Databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) were searched in December 2020. Study selection criteria: Randomized clinical trials that investigated the effects of electromyographic biofeedback for individuals with shoulder pain. Patient-reported pain and functional outcomes were collected and synthesized. Data synthesis: The level of evidence was synthesized using GRADE and Standardized Mean Differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated using a random-effects inverse variance model for meta-analysis. Results: Five studies were included with a total sample of 272 individuals with shoulder pain. Very-low quality of evidence indicated that electromyographic biofeedback was not superior to control for reducing shoulder pain (standardized mean differences = −0.21, 95% confidence interval: −0.67 to 0.24, P = 0.36). Very-low quality of evidence indicated that electromyographic biofeedback interventions were not superior to control for improving shoulder function (standardized mean differences = −0.11, 95% confidence interval: −0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48). Conclusion: Electromyographic biofeedback may be not effective for improving shoulder pain and function. However, the limited number of included studies and very low quality of evidence does not support a definitive recommendation about the effectiveness of electromyographic biofeedback to treat individuals with shoulder pain.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

European Journal of Public Health ◽

10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.1226 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽

Author(s):

M Oberndorfer ◽

I Grabovac ◽

S Haider ◽

T E Dorner

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Smoking Cessation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Promising Alternative ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Different Populations ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Reports of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs) for smoking cessation vary across different studies making implementation recommendations hard to attain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation. Methods PubMed, PsycInfo and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nicotine ECs with non-nicotine ECs or with established smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and or counselling) published between 01/01/2014 and 01/05/2019. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses. Results Our literature review yielded 13190 publications with 10 studies being identified as eligible for systematic review, covering 8362 participants, and 8 for meta-analyses (n = 30 - 6006). Using the last follow-up of eligible studies, the proportion of smokers achieving abstinence was 1.67 [95CI:0.99 - 2.81] times higher in nicotine EC users compared to non-nicotine EC users. The proportion of abstinent smokers was 1.69 [95CI:1.25 - 2.27] times higher in EC users compared to participants receiving NRT. EC users showed a 2.70 [95CI:1.15 - 6.30] times higher proportion of abstinent smokers in comparison to participants solely receiving counselling. Conclusions Our analysis showed modest effects of nicotine-ECs compared to non-nicotine ECs. When compared to NRT or counselling, results suggest that nicotine EC may be more effective for smoking cessation. As ECs also help maintaining routinized behaviour and social aspects of smoking, we hypothesise that this may explain their advantage as a tool for smoking cessation. However, given the small number of included studies, different populations, heterogeneous designs, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations. More comparable data is needed to strengthen confidence in the quality of evidence. Key messages The number of previous studies assessing the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is limited. Further, comparability of these studies is restricted, weakening the quality of evidence. Although current evidence on the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is inconclusive, our meta-analyses suggest that ECs could be a promising alternative tool in attempts to achieve abstinence.

Download Full-text