Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines in kidney transplantation

Trends in systematic reviews of kidney transplantation: A 10-year analysis of the evidence base

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) are the highest form of evidence for all types of clinical questions in evidence-based practice. For the first time in 2018, the number of SRs in transplantation outstripped those from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This raises concerns of duplication or increased use of non-RCT evidence. We aimed to analyse the trends, strength and quality of SRs in kidney transplantation over a 10-year period.

METHODS

SRs in kidney transplantation were identified from the Transplant Library, without language restriction. All full-text citations were exported to a custom Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database prior to evaluation. Quality of evidence in all included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR-2.

RESULTS

We included 454 SRs, of which, only three were scored as 'high quality'. We found that 96.70% of SRs were identified as 'critically low quality', which increased in number over time. We also found that inclusion of non-RCT data increased in the most recent 5 years. Only 14.12% of SRs had made a clear recommendation for practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights several concerning statistics that need to be addressed. In the last 10 years, only three SRs in kidney transplantation were 'high-quality'. The weaknesses identified in critical domains, alongside the increased use of non-RCT data and lack of conclusive recommendations undermines the confidence in the results of the SRs and purpose of publication. As these SRs are instrumental to clinical decision-making and patient care in kidney transplantation, we advocate for improved reporting quality among SRs in kidney transplantation.

Systematic review of methodology and reporting quality of global guidelines on fever in children

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the global clinical practice guidelines on fever in children. We also aimed to select a guideline with good methodology and reporting quality to provide scientific reference for diagnosis and treatment of fever in children.

METHODS

The Chinese and English databases Embase, PubMed, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, clinical guides, and the website of the Department of Public Health Administration were retrieved up to January 2020. The clinical practice guidelines on fever in children were included. The AGREE II instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare statement were used to evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of the guidelines.

RESULTS

Eight clinical guidelines for fever in children were included. Methodological quality assessment showed that the recommendation level of ISP, South Africa, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, China, and American College of Emergency Physicians were grade B (recommended with modification), while that of American Academy of Pediatrics, New South Wales, and South Australia was grade C recommendation (not recommended). No grade A recommendation guideline was found. The reporting quality from higher to lower was National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Chinese guideline, American College of Emergency Physicians, ISP, South Africa, New South Wales, South Australia, and American Academy of Pediatrics. The guideline recommendations were similar in various countries, but they were slightly different in various aspects, including body temperature measurement and the timing of drug administration.

CONCLUSION

There are limitations in the methodology and reporting quality of all eight global guidelines on fever in children. For future development of these guidelines, attention should be paid to improving applicability of the guidelines in terms of methodology. Additionally, the principles and explanations for formation of recommendations should be described, as well as the limitations of the reporting guideline in detail in terms of the reporting quality. Treatments of fever in children are similar in different countries, but there are still differences that require further research.

Appraisal of the current guidelines for the management of diverticular disease using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument

INTRODUCTION

Diverticular disease is one of the most frequent reasons for attending emergency departments and surgical causes of hospital admission. In the past decade, many surgical and gastroenterological societies have published guidelines for the management of diverticular disease. The aim of the present study was to appraise the methodological quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases were searched systematically. The methodological quality of the guidelines was appraised independently by five appraisers using the AGREE II instrument.

FINDINGS

A systematic search of the literature identified 12 guidelines. The median overall score of all guidelines was 68%. Across all guidelines, the highest score of 85% was demonstrated in the domain 'Scope and purpose'. The domains 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Editorial independence' both scored a median of 72%. The lowest scores were demonstrated in the domains 'Stakeholder involvement' and 'Applicability' at 46% and 40%, respectively. Overall, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines performed consistently well, scoring 100% in five of six domains; NICE was one of the few guidelines that specifically reported stakeholder involvement, scoring 97%. Generally, the domain of 'Stakeholder involvement' ranked poorly with seven of twelve guidelines scoring below 50%, with the worst score in this domain demonstrated by Danish guidelines at 25%.

CONCLUSION

Six of twelve guidelines (NICE, American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), American Gastroenterological Association, German Society of Gastroenterology/German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (German), Netherlands Society of Surgery) scored above 70%. Only three, NICE, ASCRS and ESCP, scored above 75% and were voted unanimously by the appraisers for use as they are. Therefore, use of AGREE II may help improve the methodological quality of guidelines and their future updates.

Methodological quality of guidelines for the management of opioid use disorder: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) has a high mortality rate and affects millions of people worldwide. Many organizations and societies develop Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) to serve as a framework for healthcare providers to decide and support best practice to manage and treat OUD. However, not all CPGs sufficiently address all the important aspects of optimal care for managing OUD. This study aims to review current CPGs for management of OUD, evaluate their methodological quality and summarize their recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted this systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Various databases were searched for CPGs and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. We also summarized the treatments plans of CPGs across continuum of care (diagnosis and assessment, treatment initiation, pharmacotherapy and psychosocial).

RESULTS

This review included 28 CPGs of varying qualities. CPGs from high-income countries and international organizations rated high for their methodological quality. Most CPGs scored high for the scope and purpose domain and scored low for applicability domain. Recommendations for the continuum of care for OUD varied across CPGs. Buprenorphine was recommended in most of the CPGs, followed by methadone. Recommendations for psychosocial interventions also varied, with cognitive behaviour therapies and counselling or education being the common recommendations in many CPGs WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: We found most CPGs have scope and purpose and clarity of presentation. However, the methodological rigour and applicability scored low. CPGs need to frame health questions in a comprehensible manner and provide an update as evidence grows. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations.

Critical Appraisal of International Clinical Practice Guidelines in Kidney Transplantation Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Education II Tool: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used for the development of local protocols in kidney transplantation (Ktx), the quality of their methodology is variable. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise international CPGs in all aspects of Ktx using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.

METHODS

Clinical Practice Guidelines in Ktx and donation published between 2010 and 2017 were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Health Service and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Searches, and the websites of transplant societies. Using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, 3 appraisers assessed the quality of CPGs. Interrater reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Searches identified 3168 records, and 115 CPGs were included. The highest scoring Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II domain was "scope and purpose" (80%; range, 30%-100%), followed by "clarity of presentation" (77%; range, 43%-98%), "editorial independence" (52%; range, 0%-94%), "rigor of development" (47%; range 6%-97%) and "stakeholder involvement" (41%; range, 11%-85%). The poorest scoring domain was "applicability" (31%; range, 3%-74%). Most CPGs were recommended for future use either with (63%) or without (18%) modifications. A small number (14%) were not recommended for future use or reviewers (5%) did not agree on recommending the CPG. The overall mean CPG quality score was 4 of 7 (range, 2-7). The mean ICC of 0.74 indicated substantial agreement between reviewers.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of international CPGs in Ktx was variable, and most CPGs lacked key aspects of methodological robustness and transparency. Improvements in methodology, patient involvement, and strategies for implementation are required.

Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are unique knowledge syntheses that require tailored approaches to, and greater subjectivity in, design and execution compared with other SRs in clinical epidemiology. We provide review authors structured direction on how to design and conduct methodologically rigorous SRs of CPGs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A guidance paper outlining suggested methodology for conducting all stages of an SR of CPGs. We present concrete examples of approaches used by published reviews, including a case exemplar demonstrating how this methodology was applied to our own SR of CPGs.

RESULTS

Review context and the unique characteristics of CPGs as research syntheses or clinical guidance statements must be considered in all aspects of review design and conduct. Researchers should develop a "PICAR" statement to help form and focus on the research question(s) and eligibility criteria, assess CPG quality using a validated appraisal tool, and extract, analyze, and summarize data in a way that is cogent and transparent.

CONCLUSION

SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic. These types of reviews often require methodological tailoring to ensure that their objectives and timelines are effectively and efficiently addressed; however, they should all meet the criteria for an SR, follow a rigorous methodological approach, and adhere to transparent reporting practices.