Quality of clinical practice guidelines in dermatological oncology

Neck pain clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of the quality and quantity of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations

BACKGROUND

Individuals with neck pain frequently turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to seek relief. However, conventional healthcare providers often lack adequate CAM therapy knowledge to deliver informed recommendations to patients. The purpose of this study was to identify mention of CAM in neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and assess the quality of CAM recommendations using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to 2020 in addition to the Guidelines International Network and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible CPGs providing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the AGREE II instrument, once to assess the overall CPG and then once to assess the CAM sections specifically.

RESULTS

From 643 unique search results, 15 CPGs on the treatment and/or management of neck pain were identified, and 8 made recommendations on CAM therapy. Regarding scaled domain percentages, the overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 5 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): (1) scope and purpose (93.4%, 93.1%), (2) stakeholder involvement (81.6%, 81.9%), (3) rigour of development (70.8%, 66.3%), (4) clarity of presentation (64.9%, 60.8%), (5) applicability (39.3%, 33.6%), and (6) editorial independence (47.9%, 45.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most neck pain CPGs made CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations is lower than overall recommendations across all domains with the exception of stakeholder involvement. This disparity highlights the need for CAM recommendations quality improvement. Although many patients with neck pain seek CAM therapies, few CPGs are available for healthcare providers and patients.

Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the management of COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument.

METHODS

The proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- CRD42020219944.

Evaluation of the Level of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations Constituting the American Academy of Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background

Clinical practice guidelines are evidence-based recommendations used by physicians to improve patient care. These guidelines provide the physician with an assessment of the benefits and harms of a treatment and its alternatives. Therefore, it is essential that the clinical practice guidelines be based on the strongest available evidence. Numerous studies in a variety of different fields of medicine have demonstrated that recommendations supported by weak evidence are a common theme in clinical practice guidelines. A clinical guideline based solely on weak evidence has the capability to reduce the quality of care provided by physicians.

Objective

Our primary objective is to evaluate the levels of evidence supporting the recommendations constituting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, authors SM and RO located all current clinical practice guidelines on the American Academy of Dermatology website on June 10, 2017, and December 11, 2019. Each recommendation and its corresponding evidence rating were extracted in a duplicate and blinded fashion. A consensus meeting was planned a priori to resolve disagreements in extractions or stratifications.

Results

In total, 6 clinical guidelines and their subsections were screened and 899 recommendations were identified. Our final data set included 841 recommendations, as 58 recommendations contained no level of evidence and were excluded from calculations. Many recommendations were supported by a moderate level of evidence and therefore received a B rating (346/841, 41.1%). Roughly one-third of the recommendations were supported by a strong level of evidence and were given an A rating (n=307, 36.5%). The clinical practice guideline with the highest overall strength of evidence was regarding the treatment of acne, which had 17 of 35 (48.6%) recommendations supported by strong evidence and only 2 (5.7%) supported by weak evidence. The clinical practice guideline with the fewest recommendations supported by strong evidence was melanoma (13/63, 20.6%).

Conclusions

Clinical practice guidelines that lack strong supporting evidence could negatively affect patient care, and dermatologists should be mindful that not all recommendations are supported by the strongest level of evidence. An increased quantity of quality research needs to be performed in the field of dermatology to improve the evidence supporting the American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guidelines.

A review of the quality of current diabetes clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To obtain an evaluation of current type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

Relevant guidelines were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) country offices were also contacted to obtain national diabetes guidelines in use but not published/available online. Overall, 770 records were identified on MEDLINE/PubMed for citations published from 2008 to 2013. After an initial screening of these records, 146 were found to be guidelines related to diabetes. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to further refine the search and obtain a feasible number of guidelines for appraisal. Guideline evaluation was conducted by health professionals using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, which was developed to address the issue of variability in guideline quality and assesses the methodological rigor and transparency in which a guideline is developed. A total of 17 guidelines were selected and evaluated.

RESULTS

Ten guidelines scored ≥ 70% and seven guidelines scored ≥ 80%. The range was 21%-100%. The mean scores for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) country guidelines (n = 6) were compared to the mean scores for non-LAC country guidelines (n = 11). International guidelines consistently scored notably higher in all domains and overall quality than LAC guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study's findings, it is clear that T2DM clinical practice guideline development requires further improvements, particularly with regard to the involvement of stakeholders and editorial independence. This issue is most apparent for LAC country guidelines, as their quality requires major improvement in almost all aspects of the AGREE II criteria. Continued efforts should be made to generate and update high-quality guidelines to improve the management of increasingly prevalent noncommunicable diseases, such as T2DM.

Reaching beyond the review of research evidence: a qualitative study of decision making during the development of clinical practice guidelines for disease prevention in healthcare

Background

The judgment and decision making process during guideline development is central for producing high-quality clinical practice guidelines, but the topic is relatively underexplored in the guideline research literature. We have studied the development process of national guidelines with a disease-prevention scope produced by the National board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) in Sweden. The NBHW formal guideline development model states that guideline recommendations should be based on five decision-criteria: research evidence; curative/preventive effect size, severity of the condition; cost-effectiveness; and ethical considerations. A group of health profession representatives (i.e. a prioritization group) was assigned the task of ranking condition-intervention pairs for guideline recommendations, taking into consideration the multiple decision criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the decision making process during the two-year development of national guidelines for methods of preventing disease.

Methods

A qualitative inductive longitudinal case study approach was used to investigate the decision making process. Questionnaires, non-participant observations of nine two-day group meetings, and documents provided data for the analysis. Conventional and summative qualitative content analysis was used to analyse data.

Results

The guideline development model was modified ad-hoc as the group encountered three main types of dilemmas: high quality evidence vs. low adoptability of recommendation; insufficient evidence vs. high urgency to act; and incoherence in assessment and prioritization within and between four different lifestyle areas. The formal guideline development model guided the decision-criteria used, but three new or revised criteria were added by the group: ‘clinical knowledge and experience’, ‘potential guideline consequences’ and ‘needs of vulnerable groups’. The frequency of the use of various criteria in discussions varied over time. Gender, professional status, and interpersonal skills were perceived to affect individuals’ relative influence on group discussions.

Conclusions

The study shows that guideline development groups make compromises between rigour and pragmatism. The formal guideline development model incorporated multiple aspects, but offered few details on how the different criteria should be handled. The guideline development model devoted little attention to the role of the decision-model and group-related factors. Guideline development models could benefit from clarifying the role of the group-related factors and non-research evidence, such as clinical experience and ethical considerations, in decision-processes during guideline development.

Appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for management of paediatric type 2 diabetes mellitus using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in children and adolescents is increasing. This has spurred the development and publication of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of paediatric T2DM. Given the long-term complications of T2DM, optimal management is important to prevent or delay these complications. However, the quality of published CPGs has not yet been empirically evaluated. Our objective is to systematically appraise all published CPGs for the management of T2DM in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We will identify all published CPGs that address T2DM in children and adolescents through MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Trip, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse and will screen diabetes and paediatric societies and associations' websites. Search records will be screened in duplicate for inclusion. Grey literature will be covered by systematically searching publications of all relevant diabetes societies and associations and other health organizations for CPGs that meet our inclusion criteria. CPGs deemed eligible for inclusion will be retrieved. Quality assessment will be conducted using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool by a team of four appraisers. Scaled scores of the AGREE II will be used to gauge the overall quality of CPGs.

DISCUSSION

The results of this review will be disseminated through presentations at local, national, and international conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The results of this review can help improve the reporting of future guidelines, inform decisions of policy-makers to endorse CPGs, and affect the choice of guideline use in clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016034187.

Actinic Keratosis Clinical Practice Guidelines: An Appraisal of Quality

Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common precancerous skin lesion and many AK management guidelines exist, but there has been limited investigation into the quality of these documents. The objective of this study was to assess the strengths and weaknesses of guidelines that address AK management. A systematic search for guidelines with recommendations for AK was performed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) was used to appraise the quality of guidelines. Multiple raters independently reviewed each of the guidelines and applied the AGREE II tool and scores were calculated. Overall, 2,307 citations were identified and 7 fulfilled the study criteria. The Cancer Council of Australia/Australian Cancer Network guideline had the highest mean scores and was the only guideline to include a systematic review, include an evidence rating for recommendations, and report conflicts of interest and funding sources. High-quality, effective guidelines are evidence-based with recommendations that are concise and organized, so practical application is facilitated. Features such as concise tables, pictorial diagrams, and explicit links to evidence are helpful. However, the rigor and validity of some guidelines were weak. So, it is important for providers to be aware of the features that contribute to a high-quality, practical document.

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements in oncology--an assessment of their methodological quality

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.

METHODS

Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.

FINDINGS

Thirty-four consensus statements and 67 clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The rigour of development score for consensus statements over the three journals was 32% lower than that of clinical practice guidelines. The editorial independence score was 15% lower for consensus statements than clinical practice guidelines. One journal scored consistently lower than the others over both domains. No journals adhered to all the items related to the transparency of document development. One journal's consensus statements endorsed a product made by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company in 64% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Guidance documents are an essential part of oncology care and should be subjected to a rigorous and validated development process. Consensus statements had lower methodological quality than clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II. At a minimum, journals should ensure that that all consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines adhere to AGREE II criteria. Journals should consider explicitly requiring guidelines to declare pharmaceutical company sponsorship and to identify the sponsor's product to enhance transparency.

Guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of vancomycin, vancomycin serum concentrations still do not reach therapeutic concentrations in many patients. Thus, we sought to systematically review the quality and consistency of recommendations for an international cohort of CPGs regarding vancomycin TDM.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, guidelines' websites and Google were searched for CPGs for vancomycin TDM. Two independent assessors rated the quality of each CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREEII) instrument and data were independently extracted.

RESULTS

Twelve guidelines were evaluated and the overall quality of guidelines for vancomycin TDM was moderate. The highest score was recorded in the domain of clarity of presentation, and the lowest score was recorded in the domain of rigor of development and stakeholder involvement. The specific recommendations for vancomycin TDM were moderately consistent and guidelines varied in trough concentration monitoring, frequency of TDM, and serum concentration targets.

CONCLUSION

The overall guideline quality for vancomycin TDM was not optimal and effort is needed to improve guideline quality, especially in the domain of rigor of development and stakeholder involvement.

Quality of clinical practice guidelines for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

Several studies have reported that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in a variety of clinical areas are of modest or variable quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of an international cohort of CPGs that provide recommendations on pharmaceutical management of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).

Methods and Findings

We searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) on February 15th and June 4th, 2012 for CPGs meeting inclusion criteria. Two independent assessors rated the quality of each CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Twenty-four guidelines were evaluated, and most had high scores for clarity and presentation. However, scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, and applicability domains varied considerably. The majority of guidelines scored low on editorial independence, and only seven CPGs were based on an underlying systematic review of the evidence.

Conclusions

The overall quality of CPGs for glycemic control in DM2 is moderate, but there is substantial variability among quality domains within and across guidelines. Guideline users need to be aware of this variability and carefully appraise and select the guidelines that they apply to patient care.

Analysis of quality of clinical practice guidelines for otorhinolaryngology in China

Objective

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for otorhinolaryngology in China.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search of relevant literature databases (CBM, WANFANG, VIP, CNKI, China Guideline Clearinghouse) published between 1978 and March 2012 was undertaken to identify and select CPGs related to otorhinolaryngology. Four independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Their degree of agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Result

From 170 citations, 21 relevant guidelines were included. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (ICC = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78–0.91). The scores for each of the AGREE domains were the following: “scope and purpose” (mean ± standard error [SE] = 45.4±4.4; ICC = 0.92), “stakeholder involvement” (mean ± SE = 30.4±3.1; ICC = 0.81), “rigor of development” (mean ± SE = 20.9±2.8; ICC = 0.87), “clarity of presentation” (mean ± SE = 48.8±3.7; ICC = 0.80), “applicability” (mean ± SE = 12.6±1.7; ICC = 0.72), and “editorial independence” (mean ± SE = 6.2±0.8; ICC = 0.76). Three guidelines (14%) mentioned updates, and the average update frequency was 7 years. None used the GRADE system.

Conclusion

The quality of otorhinolaryngology guidelines in China is low. Greater efforts are needed to provide high-quality guidelines that serve as a useful and reliable tool for clinical decision-making in this field.

Development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs): comparing approaches

BACKGROUND

While the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to support implementation of evidence has been demonstrated, it is not currently being achieved. CPGs are both poorly developed and ineffectively implemented. To improve clinical practice and health outcomes, both well-developed CPGs and effective methods of CPG implementation are needed. We sought to establish whether there is agreement on the fundamental characteristics of an evidence-based CPG development process and to explore whether the level of guidance provided in CPG development handbooks is sufficient for people using these handbooks to be able to apply it.

METHODS

CPG development handbooks were identified through a broad search of published and grey literature. Documents published in English produced by national or international organisations purporting to support development of evidence-based CPGs were included. A list of 14 key elements of a CPG development process was developed. Two authors read each handbook. For each handbook a judgement was made as to how it addressed each element; assigned as: 'mentioned and clear guidance provided', 'mentioned but limited practical detail provided ', or 'not mentioned'.

RESULTS

Six CPG development handbooks were included. These were produced by the Council of Europe, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK, the New Zealand Guidelines Group, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, and the World Health Organization (WHO).There was strong concordance between the handbooks on the key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process. All six of the handbooks require and provide guidance on establishment of a multidisciplinary guideline development group, involvement of consumers, identification of clinical questions or problems, systematic searches for and appraisal of research evidence, a process for drafting recommendations, consultation with others beyond the guideline development group, and ongoing review and updating of the CPG.

CONCLUSION

The key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process are addressed with strong concordance by existing CPG development handbooks. Further research is required to determine why these key elements are often not addressed by CPG developers.