QUALITY APPRAISAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES ON PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES DURING THE FIRST MONTHS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation to Spanish of the PANELVIEW instrument to evaluate the health guidelines development process

OBJECTIVES

The PANELVIEW questionnaire identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the process and methods used for developing health guidelines from the guideline development group's perspective. To expand its use, PANELVIEW ideally should be available in different languages. We aimed to cross-culturally adapt PANELVIEW into Spanish and assess its acceptability, validity, and reliability.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

To translate and culturally adapt PANELVIEW to Spanish, we followed International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research's Translation and Cultural Adaptation Good Practice Principles guidelines. The process consisted of 1) forward and back translation, 2) input from an expert panel, and 3) cognitive debriefing interviews. We assessed the content validity with experts in guideline development who rated instrument items for relevance to determine the item content validity index and scale content validity index (I-CVI and S-CVI). We tested the reliability with health guidelines panels from Spanish-speaking countries and measured internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha). We examined acceptability through the number of missing responses for each item.

RESULTS

The content comparison between the back-translation and the original version showed that most items (24/34) were conceptually equivalent but with grammatical differences. Through the cognitive interviews, we identified six items with wording issues, ten with clarity issues, and two with applicability issues. I-CVI ranged from 0.77 to 1.00, with two items needing revision. S-CVI was 0.92, showing excellent content validity. The PANELVIEW Spanish version demonstrated very good reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.96). Panel members responded to all items, showing good acceptability.

CONCLUSION

The PANELVIEW Spanish version was conceptually equivalent to the original version and provided satisfactory evidence of acceptability, validity and reliability.

Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey

BACKGROUND

Oral diseases are a major global public health problem, impacting the quality of life of those affected. While consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in oral health globally and survey the methodological process followed to formulate recommendations.

METHODS

We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012-October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization's characteristics, key features of their guidelines, and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data.

RESULTS

We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in oral health. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). In total, organizations produced 55 different guideline document types, most of them containing recommendations for clinical practice (77%). Panels were primarily composed of healthcare professionals (87%), followed by research methodologists (40%), policymakers (24%), and patient partners (18%). Most (60%) of the guidelines reported their funding source, but only one out of three (33%) included a conflict of interest (COI) policy management. The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in oral health guidelines with current international standards to formulate trustworthy recommendations.

Quality analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for management of impacted maxillary central incisors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for management of impacted central incisors.

METHODS

Search was performed in PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, and guideline-focused databases/repositories on 15-09-2022 without any limitations and was updated on 15-07-2023. Grey literature search was also performed. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection and data extraction. Quality assessment of the included CPG was performed by four independent appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. The degree of agreement among the appraisers was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Five CPG were included in the review. The Ministry of Health, Malaysia (MHM) guideline obtained the highest scores in all six domains of AGREE-II and an overall score of 73% demonstrating the "highest" quality. The remaining four guidelines obtained overall "low-quality" scores ranging from 34.57-37.52%. The ICC scores ranged from 0.530 to 0.990 for various domains of AGREE-II.

CONCLUSION

MHM guidelines demonstrated high-quality scores in domains of 'scope and purpose', 'clarity of presentation', 'applicability domain', and 'editorial independence', while others were found to have moderate or low quality. This review identified areas that can be addressed by future guideline developers to avoid these discrepancies.

Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines

AIM

To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CPG developer websites, lung cancer societies, and oncology organizations to identify CPGs providing recommendations on treatments for NSCLC. The methodological quality for each CPG was determined independently by three appraisers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument.

RESULTS

Twenty-two CPGs met the eligibility criteria. The median scores per AGREE II domain were: scope and purpose 90.7% (64.8-100%), stakeholder involvement 76.9% (27.8-96.3%); rigor of development 80.9% (27.1-92.4%); clarity of presentation 89.8% (50-100%); applicability 46.5% (12.5-87.5%); and editorial independence 91.7% (27.8-100%). Most of the CPGs (54.5%) were rated as "recommended with modifications" for clinical use.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs proving recommendations on the management of NSCLC is moderate, but there is still room for improvement in their development and implementation.

How oral health care organizations formulate actionable statements to inform practice and policy: A protocol for a systematic survey

Background: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem that impacts the quality of life of those affected. While widespread consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This systematic survey aims to identify organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally, and describe the methods and processes used. Methods: We will conduct manual searches on the websites of guideline developers, Ministries of Health, and scientific societies. Additionally, we will systematically search electronic databases to identify published guidelines and collect the name of the responsible entity. We will include organizations that regularly develop guidelines on any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in its development process. Subsequently, we will use a standardized form to extract data about the characteristics of the organization, the characteristics of their guideline or policy documents, and their formal recommendation development processes. These data will be extracted from various sources, such as the organization's official website, the methods section of each guideline, or methodological handbooks. We will use descriptive statistics to analyze the extracted data. Discussion: This systematic survey will synthesize key characteristics and methodologies used by organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines. This study will provide the basis for future development of a sustainable and connected collaborative network for evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and targeted dissemination of findings with the identified organizations. Our systematic survey represents a necessary first step toward improving the field of oral health policies and guidelines.

Emergency and sequalae management of traumatic dental injuries: a systematic survey of clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and consequences of traumatic dental injuries (TDI) make them a public health problem. Trustworthy TDI clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) assist clinicians in determining a diagnosis and guide them to the most appropriate therapy. The aim of this systematic survey was to identify and evaluate the quality of CPGs for the diagnosis, emergency management, and follow-up of TDIs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Trip database, CPG websites, and dental societies to identify documents providing recommendations for the emergency and sequelae management of TDIs. Reviewers assessed the included guidelines independently and in duplicate, using the AGREE II instrument. ANOVA or Student's t-tests were used to determine the attributes of CPGs associated with the total score in AGREE II.

RESULTS

Ten CPGs published between 2010 and 2020 were included, mostly from Europe (n = 6). The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (0.94; 95%CI 0.91-0.97). The mean scores (the higher the score, the better the domain assessment) per domain were as follows: Scope and purpose 78.0 ± 18.9%; stakeholder involvement 46.9 ± 29.6%; rigour of development 41.8 ± 26.7%; clarity of presentation 75.8 ± 17.6%; applicability 15.3 ± 18.8%; and editorial independence 41.7 ± 41.7%. The overall mean rate was 4 ± 1.3 out of a maximum score of 7. Two guidelines were recommended by the reviewers for use in practice and rated as high quality. CPGs developed by government organizations showed a significantly higher overall score.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of CPGs on TDI was suboptimal. CPG developers should synthesize the evidence and formulate recommendations using high-quality methodologies and standards in a structured, transparent, and explicit way.

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.

Recommendations for Safe Dental Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical to guide dental staff towards the safe provision of dental care; detailed knowledge of the recommendations will help to achieve the intended results. We carried out a systematic review of the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the provision of dental care issued during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Epistemonikos, and Trip databases to identify documents with recommendations intended to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during dental care. The selection process and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. The majority of CPGs recommended the use of rubber dam, high-volume evacuator, mouthwash prior to dental care, four-handed work, and mechanical barriers. The use of aerosol-generating equipment should be avoided whenever possible. In aerosol-generating procedures, the use of a N95 respirator (or similar) is recommended, in addition to a face protector, an impermeable disposable apron/gown, a cap, and gloves. The CPGs developed during the first year of the pandemic offer recommendations which guide dental staff in providing safe dental care, minimizing exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in the clinical environment. Such recommendations must, however, be updated as new evidence arises.