Guidelines for the treatment of pneumonia and urinary tract infections: evaluation of methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument

Utilization of expert opinion in infectious diseases clinical guidelines-A meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

Expert opinion is widely used in clinical guidelines. No research has ever been conducted investigating the use of expert opinion in international infectious disease guidelines. This study aimed to create an analytical map by describing the prevalence and utilization of expert opinion in infectious disease guidelines and analyzing the methodological aspects of these guidelines.

METHODS

In this meta-epidemiological study, systematic searches in PubMed and Trip Medical Database were performed to identify clinical guidelines on infectious diseases, published between January 2018 and May 2023 in English, by international organizations. Data extracted included guideline characteristics, expert opinion utilization, and methodological details. Prevalence and rationale of expert opinion use were analyzed descriptively. Methodological differences between groups were analyzed with Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U Test.

RESULTS

The analysis covered 66 guidelines with 2296 recommendations, published/endorsed by 136 organizations. Most guidelines (79%) used systematic literature searches, 42% provided search strategies, and 38% presented screening flow diagrams and conducted risk of bias assessments. 48.5% of the guidelines allowed expert opinion, most of which included expert opinion as part of the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Guidelines allowing expert opinion, compared to those which do not, issued more recommendations per guideline (48.82 vs.19.13, p<0.001), and reported fewer screening flow diagrams (25% vs. 65%, p = 0.002), and less risk of bias assessments (19% vs.78%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Expert opinion is utilized in half of assessed guidelines, often integrated into the evidence hierarchy within the grading system. Its utilization varies considerably in methodology, form, and terminology between guidelines. These findings highlight a pressing need for additional research and guidance, to improve and advance the standardization of infectious disease guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia: A critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to appraise the methodological quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) using AGREE II instrument for further enhancing the CAP CPG development.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published CPGs on CAP from January 2007 to May 2019. All reviewers independently assessed each CPG using the AGREE II instrument. A standardised score was calculated for each of the six domains.

RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 4125 citations but just 18 met our inclusion criteria. Agreement among reviewers was very good: 0.98. The domains that scored better were: "scope and purpose" and "clarity and presentation". Those that scored worse were "editorial independence", and "applicability". According to the AGREE II evaluation for each Guideline, the NICE, IDSA, BTS, SWAB, Korea, Consensur II, Colombian and Peruvian CPGs were the only recommended with no further modifications. In addition, ERS and SEPAR CPGs were recommended with modifications, with lower scores regarding the editorial independence and applicability.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, published CPGs for CAP management vary in quality with a need to improve the methodological and applicability rigour. This could be achieved following the standards for guidelines development and a better emphasis on how to apply CPGs recommendations in clinical practice.

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

The methodological quality of guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical practice guidelines serve as a framework for physicians to make decisions and to support best practice for optimizing patient care. However, if the guidelines do not address all the important components of optimal care sufficiently, the quality and validity of the guidelines can be reduced. The objectives of this study were to systematically review current guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), evaluate their methodological quality and highlight the similarities and differences in their recommendations for empirical antibiotic and antibiotic de-escalation strategies.

METHODS

This review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to September 2017 for relevant guidelines. Other databases such as NICE, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the websites of professional societies were also searched for relevant guidelines. The quality and reporting of included guidelines were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Six guidelines were eligible for inclusion in our review. Among 6 domains of AGREE-II, "clarity of presentation" scored the highest (80.6%), whereas "applicability" scored the lowest (11.8%). All the guidelines supported the antibiotic de-escalation strategy, whereas the majority of the guidelines (5 of 6) recommended that empirical antibiotic therapy should be implemented in accordance with local microbiological data. All the guidelines suggested that for early-onset HAP/VAP, therapy should start with a narrow spectrum empirical antibiotic such as penicillin or cephalosporins, whereas for late-onset HAP/VAP, the guidelines recommended the use of a broader spectrum empirical antibiotic such as the penicillin extended spectrum carbapenems and glycopeptides.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS

Expert guidelines promote the judicious use of antibiotics and prevent antibiotic overuse. The quality and validity of available HAP/VAP guidelines would be enhanced by improving their adherence to accepted best practice for the management of HAP and VAP.

Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE instrument: comparison between data obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II

Objective

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) is a representative, quantitative evaluation tool for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Recently, AGREE was revised (AGREE II). The continuity of evaluation data obtained from the original version (AGREE I) has not yet been demonstrated. The present study investigated the relationship between data obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II to evaluate the continuity between the two measurement tools.

Results

An evaluation team consisting of three trained librarians evaluated 68 CPGs issued in 2011–2012 in Japan using AGREE I and AGREE II. The correlation coefficients for the six domains were: (1) scope and purpose 0.758; (2) stakeholder involvement 0.708; (3) rigor of development 0.982; (4) clarity of presentation 0.702; (5) applicability 0.919; and (6) editorial independence 0.971. The item “Overall Guideline Assessment” was newly introduced in AGREE II. This global item had a correlation coefficient of 0.628 using the six AGREE I domains, and 0.685 using the 23 items. Our results suggest that data obtained from AGREE I can be transferred to AGREE II, and the “Overall Guideline Assessment” data can be determined with high reliability using a standardized score of the 23 items.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-017-3041-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Healthcare policy and urologic practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Healthcare policy is currently a topic of national debate, with numerous implications for the practice of urology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Healthcare policy has broad reaching effects, both predicted and unforeseen. The effects of healthcare policy are manifested through clinical practice guidelines, payment reform and the overall structure of the healthcare system. This review describes each of these topics and their impact on clinical practice, with a specific focus on urology and urologic practice.

SUMMARY

Guidelines are useful for guiding and determining what is considered appropriate clinical practice, but there are drawbacks including poor implementation and overabundance. Payment reform is constantly evolving, with multiple efforts being implemented to move away from a fee-for-service model of reimbursement. The structure of healthcare delivery is moving toward more outpatient procedures, with varying amount of physician ownership of facilities and equipment, which is itself a controversial topic.

A systematic review and appraisal of the quality of practice guidelines for the management of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines help ensure consistent care informed by current evidence. As shifts in antimicrobial resistance continue to influence first-line treatment, up-to-date guidelines are important for preventing treatment failure. A guideline's development process will influence its recommendations and users' trust.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of current gonorrhoea guidelines' development processes.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original and current English-language guidelines targeting health professionals and containing treatment recommendations for uncomplicated gonorrhoea in the general adult population.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Two appraisers assessed the guidelines independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Scores were combined as per the AGREE II users' manual.

RESULTS

We identified 10 guidelines meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of the gonorrhoea treatment guidelines varied. Most scored poorly on Rigour of Development; information on the evidence review process and methods for formulating recommendations was often missing. The WHO Guidelines for the Treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and UK National Guideline for the Management of Gonorrhoea in Adults scored the highest on Rigour of Development. Methods to address conflicts of interest were often not described in the materials reviewed. Implementation of recommendations was often not addressed.

LIMITATIONS

By limiting our study to English-language guidelines, a small number of guidelines we identified were excluded. Our analysis was limited to either published or online materials that were readily available to users. We could not differentiate between items addressed in the development process but not documented from items that were not addressed.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Gonorrhoea treatment guidelines may slow antimicrobial resistance. Many current guidelines are not in line with the current guideline development best practices; this might undermine the perceived trustworthiness of guidelines. By identifying current limitations, this study can help improve the quality of future guidelines.

The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the methodological assessment tools for pre-clinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers Manual, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) up to May 20th, 2014. Two authors selected studies and extracted data; quantitative analysis was performed to summarize the characteristics of included tools.

RESULTS

We included a total of 21 assessment tools for analysis. A number of tools were developed by academic organizations, and some were developed by only a small group of researchers. The JBI developed the highest number of methodological assessment tools, with CASP coming second. Tools for assessing the methodological quality of randomized controlled studies were most abundant. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias is the best available tool for assessing RCTs. For cohort and case-control studies, we recommend the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) is an excellent tool for assessing non-randomized interventional studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (ARHQ) methodology checklist is applicable for cross-sectional studies. For diagnostic accuracy test studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool is recommended; the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool is available for assessing animal studies; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a measurement tool for systematic reviews/meta-analyses; an 18-item tool has been developed for appraising case series studies, and the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE)-II instrument is widely used to evaluate clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

We have successfully identified a variety of methodological assessment tools for different types of study design. However, further efforts in the development of critical appraisal tools are warranted since there is currently a lack of such tools for other fields, e.g. genetic studies, and some existing tools (nested case-control studies and case reports, for example) are in need of updating to be in line with current research practice and rigor. In addition, it is very important that all critical appraisal tools remain subjective and performance bias is effectively avoided.

Antimicrobial Stewardship and Urinary Tract Infections

Urinary tract infections are the most common bacterial infections encountered in ambulatory and long-term care settings in the United States. Urine samples are the largest single category of specimens received by most microbiology laboratories and many such cultures are collected from patients who have no or questionable urinary symptoms. Unfortunately, antimicrobials are often prescribed inappropriately in such patients. Antimicrobial use, whether appropriate or inappropriate, is associated with the selection for antimicrobial-resistant organisms colonizing or infecting the urinary tract. Infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant organisms are associated with higher rates of treatment failures, prolonged hospitalizations, increased costs and mortality. Antimicrobial stewardship consists of avoidance of antimicrobials when appropriate and, when antimicrobials are indicated, use of strategies to optimize the selection, dosing, route of administration, duration and timing of antimicrobial therapy to maximize clinical cure while limiting the unintended consequences of antimicrobial use, including toxicity and selection of resistant microorganisms. This article reviews successful antimicrobial stewardship strategies in the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections.