290 Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review

Aim Guidelines on laparoscopic surgery are essential for providing guidance to achieve safe and effective treatments. In this systematic review, we investigated the true extent of the grades of recommendation which were supported by evidence in the guidelines and whether this extent depended upon the quality of the guidelines. Method We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for laparoscopic surgical guidelines published between 1st March 2016 and 1st March 2019.To determine the extent of the grades of recommendation supported by evidence, we determined the disagreement in the grading between the guideline author and independent evaluation. We used the AGREE-II Tool ‘rigour of development’ and ‘clarity of presentation’ domains to assess the quality of guidelines. We performed a mixed effects generalised linear regression modelling using binary distribution and logit link in the GLIMMIX procedure of Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software. Results We analysed 1905 guideline statements from the 63 guidelines retrieved. The median of the scores for the ‘rigour of development’, ‘clarity of presentation’, the ‘editorial independence’ domains in the guidelines were 0.43, 0.72 and 0.63. The interquartile ranges were 0.094, 0.25 and 0.38. The ‘rigour of development’ domain was the only determinant of disagreement in the grades of recommendation guideline statements between the guideline authors and independent evaluation. Conclusions There is variation in the grades of recommendation in the guidelines. The ‘rigour of development’ domain can be used to predict quality of the guidelines. Guideline users should use the ‘rigour of development’ domain to assess the quality of the laparoscopic guidelines before developing local clinical policies.

EAU, AUA and NICE Guidelines on Surgical and Minimally Invasive Treatment of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Critical Appraisal of the Guidelines Using the AGREE-II Tool

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To critically appraise the methodological rigour of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) vis-à-vis BPH surgery as used by specialist research associations in the US, Europe and UK, and to compare whether the guidelines cover all or only some of the available treatments. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The current guidelines issued by the EUA, AUA and NICE associations have been analyzed by 4 appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. We also compared the recommendations given in the guidelines for surgical and minimally invasive treatment to find out which of these CPGs include most of the available treatment options. <b><i>Results:</i></b> According to the AGREE II tool, the median scores of domains were: domain 1 scope and purpose 66.7%, domain 2 stakeholder involvement 50.0%, domain 3 rigor of development 65.1%, domain 4 clarity of presentation 80.6%, domain 5 applicability 33.3%, domain 6 editorial independence 72.9%. The overall assessment according to AGREE II is 83.3%. The NICE guideline scored highest on 5 out of 6 domains and the highest overall assessment score (91.6%). The EAU guideline scored lowest on 4 out of 6 domains and has the lowest overall assessment score (79.1%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The analyzed CPGs comprehensively highlight the minimally invasive and surgical treatment options for BPH. According to the AGREE II tool, the domains for clarity of presentation and editorial independence received the highest scores. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains were ranked as the lowest. Improving the CPG in these domains may help to improve the clinical utility and applicability of CPGs.

POS1400 A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES REGARDING THE ROLE OF RADIOGRAPHY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF OSTEOARTHRITIS

Background:A substantial proportion of primary care osteoarthritis (OA) consultations are associated with an X-ray request (1,2). Uncertainty exists regarding the ability of radiography to improve a clinical OA diagnosis, and the over-use of radiography may lead to inappropriate referrals due to severe radiographic features that do not correlate with patients’ symptoms. Additionally, there are cost implications of unnecessarily imaging such a prevalent disease. As evidence questions the utility of routine radiography in OA, the extent to which radiography is supported by international guidelines is unknown.Objectives:To undertake a systematic review and narrative synthesis of UK and international guideline recommendations on the role of radiography in the diagnosis of OA.Methods:A systematic search of eleven electronic databases (including EMBASE, MEDLINE CINAHL, Epistemonikos and Guideline Central) and the websites of nine professional organisations (including NICE, Royal College of Radiologists (RCR), EULAR, and the American College of Radiology (ACR)) identified the most recent evidence-based guidelines produced by professional organisations on the role of imaging in OA. Guidelines not addressing the role of radiography in the diagnosis of OA were excluded, as were non-English and spinal OA guidelines. Each title was screened by one reviewer whilst each abstract and full text underwent dual screening. A single reviewer, using a standard proforma, undertook data extraction. Each guideline was independently appraised by two reviewers using the AGREE II tool. A narrative synthesis of the nature and consistency of OA radiographic recommendations was performed.Results:18 evidence-based OA guidelines published between 1998-2019 were included. These guidelines considered OA at any joint (n=8), or at the knee (n=3), hip (n=2), hand (n=2), wrist (n=1), foot (n=1), and ankle (n=1). Seven guidelines were produced by European organisations; four guidelines were produced by EULAR. Guidelines were targeted at general practitioners (n=11), radiologists (n=7), rheumatologist (n=4) and orthopaedic surgeons (n=3). Using the AGREE II tool, the identified guidelines scored highly on rigour of development (mean score 69%) but poorly on applicability (32%). All 18 guidelines recommended X-rays as the first-line modality, where imaging was indicated. A clinical diagnosis of OA without radiographic confirmation was recommended by all eleven guidelines produced by organisations represented general practitioners, with seven guidelines justifying this due to a poor correlation between radiographic features and clinical symptoms. Only three guidelines explicitly discouraged the routine use of radiography for the diagnosis of OA and only two guidelines reassured practitioners of a low probability of missing serious pathology when not routinely requesting radiographs. Guidelines produced by organisations representing radiologists were more supportive of radiography. The ACR recommended radiographic confirmation in patients suspected to have OA at the hand, wrist, hip, knee, ankle, and foot. Conversely, the RCR recommended radiographic confirmation in patients suspected to have OA at the hand, feet, and hip, but not the knee.Conclusion:Differences in guideline recommendations on the utility of radiography in OA appear related to country/region, professional organisation, and joint. The use and utility of radiography in OA may need to be reviewed in light of a shift towards remote consultations, a change that has been accelerated by COVID-19 in many countries.References:[1]Yu D, Jordan K, Bedson J, Englund M, Blyth F, Turkiewicz A et al. Population trends in the incidence and initial management of osteoarthritis: age-period-cohort analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 1992–2013. Rheumatology. 2017;56(11):1902-1917.[2]Brand C, Harrison C, Tropea J, Hinman R, Britt H, Bennell K. Management of Osteoarthritis in General Practice in Australia. Arthritis Care & Research. 2014;66(4):551-558Acknowledgements:JJE is funded by an Academic Clinical Lectureship from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) for this research project (CL-2016-10-003). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

646 Appraisal of International Guidelines for Malignant Melanoma Management Using the AGREE II Assessment Tool

Background Recently, the widely accepted NICE guidelines for melanoma management have been challenged by a UK-based expert consensus statement. A review of alternative clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) could guide future CPG updates and developments. The AGREE II tool assesses CPGs across six domains: ‘Scope and purpose’, ‘Stakeholder involvement’, ‘Rigour of development’, ‘Clarity of presentation’, ‘Applicability’, and ‘Editorial independence’. Method We conducted a systematic search of Pubmed, Medline and online CPG databases to identify melanoma CPGs published between January 2014 and March 2020 providing recommendations for: adjuvant treatment, radiotherapy, surgical management, or follow-up care. Three authors independently assessed the quality of identified CPGs using the AGREE II assessment tool. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W). Results Twenty-nine CPGs were included and appraised with excellent reliability (Kendall’s W for overall GPC score 0.85, p &lt; 0.001). Overall, melanoma CPGs scored highly in the scope and purpose and clarity of presentation domains, and poorly in the applicability domain. The NICE guideline achieved the best overall scores. Conclusions The NICE melanoma CPGs are higher quality than alternatives but should be updated to reflect recent landmark trials. The AGREE II tool is currently limited by its incapacity to compare guidelines to latest evidence.

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

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.

Management in the paediatric wards facing novel coronavirus infection: a rapid review of guidelines and consensuses

ObjectivesRelevant guidelines and consensuses for COVID-19 contain recommendations aimed at optimising the management in paediatric wards. The goal of this study was to determine the quality of those recommendations and provide suggestions to hospital managers for the adjustment of existing hospital prevention and control strategies, and also to offer recommendations for further research.DesignA rapid review of the guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards facing COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, UpToDate, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang database and relevant websites such as medlive.cn, dxy.cn, the National Health and Health Commission and the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention were systematically searched through late May 2020. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool was then used to assess the quality of the selected articles and summarise the relevant evidence concerning management in paediatric wards.ResultsA total of 35 articles were included, composed of 3 consensus guidelines, 25 expert consensuses and 7 expert opinions. Of the 35 papers, 24 were from China, 2 from the USA, 1 from Spain, 1 from Brazil, 1 from Saudi Arabia and 6 from multinational cooperative studies. Scores for the six domains of the AGREE II tool (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence) were 98.57%, 53.57%, 17.92%, 69.62%, 26.96% and 50.35%, respectively. Recommendations for nosocomial infection and control, human resource management as well as management of paediatric patients and their families were summarised.ConclusionsDue to the outbreak of COVID-19, the quality of rapid guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards affected by COVID-19 is unsatisfactory. In the future, it will be necessary to develop more high-quality guidelines or consensuses for the management in paediatric wards to deal with nosocomial outbreaks in order to fully prepare for emergency medical and health problems.