International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review

A systematic critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines of antithrombotic agents in gastrointestinal endoscopy using the AGREE II tool

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has not been systematically appraised. The goal of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in periendoscopic period published within last 6 years.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify eligible CPGs published between January 1, 2016, and April 14, 2022, addressing the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period. The quality of the CPG was independently assessed by six reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Domain scores were considered of sufficient quality when > 60% and of good quality when > 80%.

RESULTS

The search yielded 343 citations, of which seven CPGs published by the gastroenterology associations in Asia (n = 3), Europe (n = 2), and North America (n = 2) were included for the critical appraisal. The overall median score for the AGREE II domains was 93% (interquartile range [IQR] 11%) for scope and purpose, 79% (IQR 61%) for stakeholder involvement, 79% (IQR 36%) for rigor of development, 100% (IQR 14%) for clarity of presentation, 32% (IQR 36%) for applicability, 93% (IQR 29%) for editorial independence, and 86% (IQR 29%) for overall assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that the overall methodological quality of the CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period varies across the domains. There is significant scope for improvement in the methodological rigor and applicability of CPGs.

Assessment of the methodological, recommendation and reporting quality of global guidelines for neck pain and synthesis of evidence and recommendations: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is a global health problem that can cause severe disability and a huge medical burden. Clinical practice guideline (CPG) is an important basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment. A high-quality CPG plays a significant role in clinical practice. However, the quality of the CPGs for neck pain lacks comprehensive assessment. This protocol aims to evaluate the methodological, recommendation, reporting quality of global CPGs for neck pain and identify key recommendations and gaps that limit evidence-based practice.

METHOD

CPGs from January 2013 to November 2023 will be identified through a systematic search on 13 scientific databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, etc) and 7 online guideline repositories. Six reviewers will independently evaluate the quality of CPGs for neck pain by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare tools. Intraclass correlation coefficient will be used to test the consistency of the assessment. We will identify the distribution of evidence and recommendations in each evidence-based CPGs for neck pain and regrade the level of evidence and strength of recommendations by adopting the commonly used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. The key recommendations based on high-quality evidence will be summarised. In addition, we will categorise CPGs by different characteristics and conduct a subgroup analysis of the results of assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No subjects will be involved in this systematic review, so there is no need for ethical approval. The finding of this review will be summarised as a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023417717.

Brazilian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Sexually Transmitted Infections That Cause Urethral Discharge: Assessment According to the AGREE II and Critical Analysis Based on the WHO Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Sexually transmitted infections (STI) can have severe consequences. In Brazil, case management is recommended by the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutical Guidelines for Comprehensive Care for People with STIs (PCDT-IST). This study assessed the quality of PCDT-IST (2021) and reviewed the main recommendations for the management of STI that cause urethral discharge compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) STI Guidelines.

METHODS

The PCDT-IST (2021) quality was independently assessed by 4 appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument, version II (AGREE II). The PCDT-IST (2021) and the WHO Guidelines for the Management of Symptomatic STI (2021) were compared considering 14 different assessment domains.

RESULTS

The PCDT-IST (2021) scores in the AGREE II domains were: Rigor of Development (58%), Applicability (35%), Editorial Independence (38%), Scope and Purpose (78%), Stakeholder Involvement (74%), and Clarity and Presentation (82%). The overall score was 67%, and all appraisers recommended the Brazilian guideline. Regarding the PCDT-IST (2021) and the WHO STI Guidelines (2021) comparation, 10 domains would be relevant for further reviewing the Brazilian recommendations: Diagnostic tests; Etiological approach; Treatment for recurrent urethral discharge; Treatment for urethritis without etiological agent identification; Treatment for gonococcal urethritis; Treatment for chlamydial urethritis; Retreatment for gonococcal infections; Treatment for Mycoplasma genitalium urethritis; Treatment for Trichomonas vaginalis urethritis; 10. Flowcharts.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCDT-IST (2021) has a reasonable degree of quality. However, the domains of Applicability, Rigor of Development, and Editorial Independence must be better ensured. The guidelines comparison will help to select key topics that should be addressed with priority in the following national STI guidelines updates.

A systematic review and critical evaluation of quality of clinical practice guidelines on fetal growth restriction

INTRODUCTION

To systematically identify and critically assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on management fetal growth restriction (FGR).

CONTENT

Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus and ISI Web of Science databases were searched to identify all relevant CPGs on FGR.

SUMMARY

Diagnostic criteria of FGR, recommended growth charts, recommendation for detailed anatomical assessment and invasive testing, frequency of fetal growth scans, fetal monitoring, hospital admission, drugs administrations, timing at delivery, induction of labor, postnatal assessment and placental histopathological were assessed. Quality assessment was evaluated by AGREE II tool. Twelve CPGs were included. Twenty-five percent (3/12) of CPS adopted the recently published Delphi consensus, 58.3% (7/12) an estimated fetal weight (EFW)/abdominal circumference (AC) EFW/AC <10th percentile, 8.3% (1/12) an EFW/AC <5th percentile while one CPG defined FGR as an arrest of growth or a shift in its rate measured longitudinally. Fifty percent (6/12) of CPGs recommended the use of customized growth charts to assess fetal growth. Regarding the frequency of Doppler assessment, in case of absent or reversed end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery 8.3% (1/12) CPGs recommended assessment every 24-48, 16.7% (2/12) every 48-72 h, 1 CPG generically recommended assessment 1-2 times per week, while 25 (3/12) did not specifically report the frequency of assessment. Only 3 CPGs reported recommendation on the type of Induction of Labor to adopt. The AGREE II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment (OA1) had a mean of 50%.

OUTLOOK

There is significant heterogeneity in the management of pregnancies complicated by FGR in published CPGs.

A Systematic Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Heart Failure Using the AGREE II Tool

Multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for heart failure management have been published to provide the best practices regarding the use of foundational therapies to reduce morbidity and mortality in this patient population. However, a critical appraisal of these heart failure guidelines has not been performed. This systematic review aimed to assess the methodological quality of current CPGs in the management of patients with heart failure. A comprehensive search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted to identify CPGs published between January 1, 2021 and September 8, 2022. Any CPGs published in the last 2 years addressing the management of heart failure were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the CPGs was assessed using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluate II) instrument. The initial search yielded 3,269 citations, of which, 6 CPGs were included. A total of 2 CPGs were each published by the cardiology associations in North America and Asia and 1 each in Europe and South America. The overall median score for the AGREE II domains were 100% for scope and purpose, 71% for stakeholder involvement, 71% for the rigor of development, 100% for clarity of presentation, 43% for applicability, 100% for editorial independence, and 64% for overall assessment. CPG developers would benefit from the use of a standardized approach to the development of CPGs and use the contents of the AGREE II tool to improve the methodological rigor, reporting, and applicability of CPGs.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Involvement of methodological experts and the quality of clinical practice guidelines: a critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines and a questionnaire survey of the development groups in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the involvement of methodological experts improves the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) after adjusting for other factors.

SETTING

The quality of Japanese CPGs published in 2011-2019 was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. A questionnaire survey targeting CPG development groups was conducted through postal mail.

PARTICIPANTS

405 CPGs were retrieved from a Japanese CPG clearinghouse. Questionnaires were distributed to the 405 CPG development groups. Of the 178 respondents, 22 were excluded because of missing values. Finally, 156 participants representing their CPG development groups were included in the analysis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

CPG quality was assessed using the AGREE II tool. The characteristics of CPGs, including publication year, development organisation, versions, number of members in the development group and involvement of methodological experts, were corrected from the description in the CPGs and the questionnaire survey. We performed multiple logistic regressions using the quality of CPGs as the dependent variable and the involvement of experts as the independent variable, adjusting for other possible factors.

RESULTS

A total of 156 CPGs were included. Expert involvement was significantly associated with the AGREE II instrument scores in domains 1 (β=0.207), 2 (β=0.370), 3 (β=0.413), 4 (β=0.289), 5 (β=0.375), 6 (β=0.240) and overall (β=0.344).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that the involvement of methodological experts in the CPG development process improves the quality of CPGs. The results suggest the importance of establishing a training and certification programme for experts and constructing expert referral systems that meet CPG developers' needs to improve the quality of CPGs.

Comparison of International Guidelines on the Management of Twin Pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To review current international clinical guidelines on the antenatal and intrapartum management of twin pregnancies, examining areas of consensus and conflict.

METHODS

We conducted a database search using Medline, Pubmed, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL and ERCI Guidelines website. Guidelines were screened for eligibility using our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Those deemed eligible were quality assessed using the AGREE II tool and relevant data was extracted.

RESULTS

We identified 21 relevant guidelines from 16 countries including two international society guidelines. There was consensus in determination of chorionicity and amnionicity within the first trimester, fetal anomaly scan between 18 and 22 weeks and the recommended screening for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). For those that provided intrapartum guidance, there was agreement in recommending caesarean section to deliver monochorionic monoamniotic (MCMA) twins, epidural anaesthesia for intrapartum analgesia and the use of cardiotocography (CTG) for intrapartum fetal monitoring. The main areas of conflict included cervical length screening, frequency of ultrasound surveillance, timing of delivery of dichorionic twin pregnancies and circumstances for recommending vaginal delivery. There was a lack of advice on intrapartum management.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has highlighted the need for unified international guidance on the management of twin pregnancy. Comparisons of current guidance demonstrates a lack of confidence in the management of labour in twin pregnancies. Further evidence on intrapartum care of twin pregnancies is needed to inform practice guidelines and improve both short and long term maternal and fetal outcomes.

Placenta accreta spectrum disorders clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To objectively assess the quality of the published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of pregnancies complicated by placenta accreta spectrum (PAS)disorders.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched. The following aspects related to the management of pregnancies with suspected PAS disorders were evaluated: risk factors for PAS, prenatal diagnosis, role of interventional radiology and ureteral stenting, and optimal surgical management. The assessment of risk of bias and quality assessment of the CPGs were performed using the (AGREE II) tool (Brouwers et al., 2010). To define a CPG as of good quality we adopted a cut-off score >60%.

RESULTS

Nine CPGs were included. Specific risk factors for referral were assessed by 44.4% (4/9) of CPGs, mainly consisting in the presence of placenta previa and a prior cesarean delivery or uterine surgery. About 55.6% of CPGs (5/9) suggested ultrasound assessment of women with risk factors for PAS in the second and third trimester of pregnancy and 33.3% (3/9) recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); 88.9% (8/9) of CPGs recommended cesarean delivery at 34-37 weeks of gestation. There was not generally consensus on the use of interventional radiology and ureteral stenting before surgery for PAS. Finally, hysterectomy was the recommend surgical approach by 77.8% (7/9) of the included CPGs.

CONCLUSION

Most of the published CPGs on PAS are generally of good quality. There was general agreement among the different CPGs on PAS as a regard as risk stratification, timing at diagnosis and delivery but not on the indication for MRI, use of interventional radiology and ureteral stenting.

A Delphi consensus checklist helped assess the need to develop rapid guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop a checklist to aid guideline developers in determining which scientific or societal cause ("triggers") are relevant when considering to initiate a rapid recommendation procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a two-round modified Delphi procedure with a panel of Dutch guideline experts, clinicians, and patient representatives. A previously conducted systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with four science journalists were used to generate a list of potential items. This item list was submitted to the panel for discussion, reduction and refinement into a checklist.

RESULTS

Thirteen experts took part. Two questionnaires were completed in which participants scored an initial list of 64 items based on relevance. During two online meetings, the scores were discussed, irrelevant items were removed, and relevant items were reformulated into seven questions. The final "quickscan assessment of the need for a rapid recommendation" covers user perspective, scientific evidence, clinical relevance, clinical practice variation, applicability, quality of care and public health outcomes, and ethical/legal considerations.

CONCLUSION

The quickscan aids guideline developers in systematically assessing whether a trigger expresses a valid need for developing a rapid recommendation. Future research could focus on the applicability and validity of the checklist within guideline development programs.

Systematic review and critical evaluation of quality of clinical practice guidelines on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify and critically assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines for the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched until February 15, 2022.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were clinical practice guidelines on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy. The risk of bias and quality assessments of the included clinical practice guidelines were performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II tool, which is considered the gold standard for quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines. To define a clinical practice guideline as of good quality, we adopted the cutoff score proposed by Amer et al: if the overall clinical practice guideline score was >60%, it was recommended.

METHODS

The following clinical points related to the management of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were addressed: criteria for maternal hospitalization, recommendations for follow-up fetal growth scan, specific recommendations against invasive procedures, management of labor, timing of delivery, postpartum care, and vaccination strategy.

RESULTS

A total of 28 clinical practice guidelines were included. All recommended hospitalization only for severe disease; 46.1% (6/13) suggested a fetal growth scan after SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas 23.1% (3/13) did not support this practice. Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was recommended in symptomatic women by 77.1% (7/9) of the clinical practice guidelines. None of the guidelines recommended administering corticosteroids only for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in preterm gestation, unless specific obstetrical indication exists. Elective induction of labor from 39 weeks of gestation was suggested by 18.1% (2/11) of the clinical practice guidelines included in the present review, whereas 45.4% (5/11) did not recommend elective induction unless other obstetrical indications coexisted. There were 27% (3/11) of clinical practice guidelines that suggested shortening of the second stage of labor, and active pushing was supported by 18.1% (2/11). There was general agreement among the clinical practice guidelines in not recommending cesarean delivery only for the presence of maternal infection and in recommending vaccine boosters at least 6 months after the primary series of vaccination. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment of clinical practice guidelines had a mean of 50% (standard deviation±21.82%), and 9 clinical practice guidelines scored >60%.

CONCLUSION

A significant heterogeneity was found in some of the main aspects of the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, as reported by the published clinical practice guidelines.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for neonatal sepsis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument: A systematic review of neonatal guidelines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neonatal sepsis (NS) continues to be a critical healthcare priority for the coming decades worldwide. The aim of this study was to critically appraise the quality of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neonatal sepsis and to summarize and compare their recommendations.

METHODS

This study involves a systematic review of CPGs. We identified clinical questions and eligibility criteria and searched and screened for CPGs using bibliographic and CPG databases and professional societies. Each included CPG was assessed by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. We summarized the recommendations in a comparison practical table. The systematic review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Its protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42021258732).

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 4,432 citations; of which five CPGs were eligible and appraised: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP 2018) (35 and 34 weeks); Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS 2017); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE 2021); and Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Services (QH 2020). Among these, the overall assessment of two evidence-based CPGs scored > 70% (NICE and QH), which was consistent with their higher scores in the six domains of the AGREE II instrument. In domain 3 (rigor of development), NICE and QH scored 99 and 60%, respectively. In domain 5 (applicability), they scored 96 and 74%, respectively, and in domain 6 (editorial independence), they scored 90 and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The methodological quality of the NICE CPG was superior followed by the QH CPG with relevant recommendations for use in practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021258732, PROSPERO (CRD42021258732).