Edwards C, Lam J, Gardiner J, Erstad BL. Quality of critical care clinical practice guidelines involving pharmacotherapy recommendations.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2022;
79:1919-1924. [PMID:
35848948 DOI:
10.1093/ajhp/zxac193]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
DISCLAIMER
In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.
PURPOSE
To assess the quality of critical care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) involving pharmacotherapy recommendations.
METHODS
A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for critical care CPGs published between 2012 and 2022 and involving pharmacotherapy recommendations. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was employed to appraise CPG quality through independent assessment by 2 appraisers.
RESULTS
Twenty-one CPGs were evaluated. The number of recommendations in each guideline ranged from 2 to 250, with a total of 1,604 recommendations. The number of strong (vs weak) recommendations in each guideline ranged from 0 to 31, with a total of 116 strong recommendations, or 7.23% of the total number of recommendations. There was at least 1 pharmacist author for 9 (43%) of the guidelines. The AGREE II domains for which mean quality scores of evaluated guidelines were highest were scope and purpose (0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92), rigor of development (0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.83), clarity of presentation (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), and editorial independence (0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94), while those for which mean scores were lowest were stakeholder involvement (0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75) and applicability (0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). Involvement of a pharmacist in CPG development was associated with significantly higher scoring for stakeholder involvement (P = 0.0356).
CONCLUSION
Strong recommendations accounted for less than 10% of the recommendations in the evaluated CPGs. Moreover, there are concerns related to guideline applicability (ie, advice or tools for putting recommendations into practice) and stakeholder involvement (ie, inclusion of individuals from all relevant groups). It is important to involve pharmacists in CPGs with pharmacotherapy recommendations.
Collapse