Systematic evaluation of the diagnostic approach of inflammatory bowel disease guidelines

Natural approaches for the management of ulcerative colitis: evidence of preclinical and clinical investigations

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a recurring autoimmune disorder characterized by persistent inflammation in the mucosal lining of the lower part of the large intestine. Conventional treatment options such as salicylates, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants often come with severe side effects, limited bioavailability, and the development of drug resistance, which hampers their therapeutic effectiveness. Therefore, it is imperative to explore natural strategies as safe and alternative treatments for UC. Currently, around 40% of UC patients find relief through natural constituents, which can help reduce toxic side effects and maintain clinical remission. This review aims to provide a summary of both preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of various natural substances in the prophylaxis of UC. These natural options include plant extracts, essential oils, nutraceuticals, and phytochemicals. Furthermore, we will delve into the potential mechanisms that underlie the protective and curative actions of these novel herbal agents. In summary, this review will explore the effectiveness of natural remedies for UC, shedding light on their preclinical and clinical findings and the mechanisms behind their therapeutic actions. These alternatives offer hope for improved treatment outcomes and reduced side effects for individuals suffering from this challenging autoimmune condition.

Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in inflammatory bowel disease guidelines: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II

BACKGROUND

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for disease management. There is, however, a communication gap between patients and healthcare professionals regarding CAM use, where patients are hesitant to disclose CAM use to providers. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in IBD clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2011 to 2022 to find CPGs for the treatment and/or management of IBD. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) websites were also searched. Eligible CPGs were assessed using the AGREE II instrument.

RESULTS

Nineteen CPGs made CAM recommendations for IBD and were included in this review. Average scaled domain percentages of CPGs were as follows (overall CPG, CAM section): scope and purpose (91.5%, 91.5%), clarity of presentation (90.3%, 64.0%), editorial independence (57.0%, 57.0%), stakeholder involvement (56.7%, 27.8%), rigour of development (54.7%, 45.9%), and applicability (14.6%, 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of CPGs with CAM recommendations were of low quality and their CAM sections scored substantially lower relative to other therapies in the overall CPG. In future updates, CPGs with low scaled-domain percentages could be improved in accordance with AGREE II and other guideline development resources. Further research investigating how CAM therapies can best be incorporated into IBD CPGs is warranted.

Quality assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review

Background

The incidence and diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased considerably in recent years. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPG) have been developed for the management of this disease across different clinical contexts, however, little evidence exists on their methodological quality. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs for the diagnosis and treatment of IBD using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.

Methods

We identified CPGs by searching databases (MEDLINE - PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS) and other sources of gray literature on January 2022. We included guidelines with specific recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of IBD and evaluated them with the AGREE II instrument to assess their methodological quality. Six independent reviewers assessed the quality of the guidelines and resolved conflicts by consensus. We assessed the degree of agreement using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and change in quality over time was appraised in two periods: from 2012 to 2017 and from 2018 to 2022.

Results

We analyzed and evaluated 26 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (ICC: 0.74; 95% CI 0.36 - 0.89). The mean scores of the AGREE II domains were: “Scope and purpose” 84.51%, “Stakeholder involvement” 60.90%, “Rigor of development” 69.95%, “Clarity of presentation” 85.58%, “Applicability” 26.60%, and “Editorial independence” 62.02%. No changes in quality were found over time.

Conclusions

The quality of the CPGs evaluated was generally good, with a large majority of the assessed guidelines being “recommended” and “recommended with modifications”; despite this, there is still room for improvement, especially in terms of stakeholder involvement and applicability. Efforts to develop high quality CPGs for IBD need to be further optimized.