Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19

How consistent are the key recommendations, and what is the quality of guidelines and expert consensus regarding paediatric cow's milk protein allergy?

The objective of this study was to assess the quality and consistency of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus on paediatric cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) to serve as a foundation for future revisions and enhancements of clinical guidelines and consensus documents. We conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, UpToDate, ClinicalKey, DynaMed Plus and BMJ Best Practice. We spanned the search period from the inception of each database through October 1, 2023. We integrated subject headings (MeSH/Emtree) and keywords into the search strategy, used the search methodologies of existing literature and developed it in collaboration with a librarian. Two trained researchers independently conducted the literature screening and data extraction. We evaluated methodological quality and recommendations by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) and AGREE-Recommendations for Excellence (AGREE-REX) tools. Moreover, we compared and summarized key recommendations from high-quality CPGs. Our study included 27 CPGs and expert consensus documents on CMPA. Only four CPGs (14.8%) achieved a high-quality AGREE II rating. The four high-quality CPGs consistently provided recommendations for CMPA. The highest scoring domains for AGREE II were 'scope and purpose' (77 ± 12%) and 'clarity of presentation' (75 ± 22%). The lowest scoring domains were 'stakeholder involvement' (49 ± 21%), 'rigor of development' (34 ± 20%) and 'applicability' (12 ± 20%). Evaluation with AGREE-REX generally demonstrated low scores across its domains.   Conclusion: Recommendations within high-quality CPGs for the paediatric CMPA showed fundamental consistency. Nevertheless, the methodology and recommendation content of CPGs and the expert consensus exhibited low quality, thus indicating a substantial scope for enhancement. Guideline developers should rigorously follow the AGREE II and AGREE-REX standards in creating CPGs or expert consensuses to guarantee their clinical efficacy in managing paediatric CMPA. What is Known: • The quality of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus on paediatric cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) remains uncertain. • There is a lack of clarity regarding the consistency of crucial recommendations for CMPA management. What is New: • Improving the methodological quality of guidelines and consensus on CMPA requires greater emphasis on stakeholder engagement, rigorous development processes, and practical applicability. • The recommendations from four high-quality guidelines align. However, addressing clinical applicability, integrating values and preferences, and ensuring actionable implementation are critical to improving the quality of all guidelines.

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.

Sysmex-derived COVID-19 prognostic score as an early prognostic marker for severity of the COVID-19 disease

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening disease with a heterogeneous course. Even some young patients are at increased risk of severe course or death, as they can face severe complications. It would be very useful to have a cheap and easily available marker to predict COVID-19 course in the early stages of the disease. The COVID-19 prognostic score could be a very useful clinical indicator available at the time of primary contact with the patient.

METHODS

The COVID-19 prognostic score and the clinical condition together with selected laboratory parameters were evaluated in patients with respiratory tract infection and a positive PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 during the first contact with the patient. Prognostic significance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC). Selected parameters of the blood count and hemostasis, as well as selected biochemical indicators, were examined too.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 164 patients developed serious symptoms. The COVID-19 score had one of the highest AUC values (0.855) of all markers. The highest combination of sensitivity (91.9%) and specificity (71.7%) for identifying patients with a subsequent moderate and severe course of the disease was achieved at the threshold 1.5. The predictive value of a negative test is beneficial too (0.968).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 prognostic score is a promising indicator stratifying patients with COVID-19 into prognostic groups at the time of the first contact, thus allowing the timely provision of increased care in patients at high risk of severe development.

Discovering associations between radiological features and COVID-19 patients' deterioration

Background and Aims

Data mining methods are effective and well-known tools for developing predictive models and extracting useful information from various data of patients. The present study aimed to predict the severity of patients with COVID-19 by applying the rule mining method using characteristics of medical images.

Methods

This retrospective study has analyzed the radiological data from 104 COVID-19 hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in a hospital in Iran. A data set containing 75 binary features was generated. Apriori method is utilized for association rule mining on this data set. Only rules with confidence equal to one were generated. The performance of rules is calculated by support, coverage, and lift indexes.

Results

Ten rules were extracted with only X-ray-related features on cases referred to ICU. The Support and Coverage index of all of these rules was 0.087, and the Lift index of them was 1.58. Thirteen rules were extracted from only CT scan-related features on cases referred to ICU. The CXR_Pleural effusion feature has appeared in all the rules. The CXR_Left upper zone feature appears in 9 rules out of 10. The Support and Coverage index of all rules was 0.15, and the Lift index of all rules was 1.63. the CT_Adjacent pleura thickening feature has appeared in all rules, and the CT_Right middle lobe appeared in 9 rules out of 13.

Conclusion

This study could reveal the application and efficacy of CXR and CT scan imaging modalities in predicting ICU admission to a major COVID-19 infection via data mining methods. The findings of this study could help data scientists, radiologists, and clinicians in the future development and implementation of these methods in similar conditions and timely and appropriately save patients from adverse disease outcomes.

Mechanical ventilation for COVID-19: Outcomes following discharge from inpatient treatment

Though mechanical ventilation (MV) is used to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), little is known about the long-term health implications of this treatment. Our objective was to determine the association between MV for treatment of COVID-19 and likelihood of hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and reason for readmission. This study was a longitudinal observational design with electronic health record (EHR) data collected between 3/1/2020 and 1/31/2021. Participants included 17,652 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during this period who were followed through 6/30/2021. The primary outcome was readmission to inpatient care following discharge. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and reason for readmission. Rates of readmission and mortality were compared between ventilated and non-ventilated patients using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Differences in reasons for readmission by MV status were compared using multinomial logistic regression. Patient characteristics and measures of illness severity were balanced between those who were mechanically ventilated and those who were not utilizing 1-to-1 propensity score matching. The sample had a median age of 63 and was 47.1% female. There were 1,131 (6.4%) patients who required MV during their initial hospitalization. Rates (32.1% versus 9.9%) and hazard of readmission were greater for patients requiring MV in the propensity score-matched samples [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.34 (2.72-4.10)]. Rates (15.3% versus 3.4%) and hazard [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.12 (2.32-4.20)] of all-cause mortality were also associated with MV status. Ventilated patients were more likely to be readmitted for reasons which were classified as COVID-19, infectious diseases, and respiratory diagnoses compared to non-ventilated patients. Mechanical ventilation is a necessary treatment for severely ill patients. However, it may be associated with adverse outcomes including hospital readmission and death. More intense post-discharge monitoring may be warranted to decrease this associational finding.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Acceptance of Sinopharm and AstraZeneca's COVID-19 Vaccines among Egyptian Population: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the Egyptian population's preference and awareness related to available COVID-19 vaccines and to determine different factors that can affect beliefs concerning these vaccines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web-based study was carried out among the general population in Egypt. Data collection was conducted via an online questionnaire.

RESULTS

About 426 subjects participated in the survey. Vaccine preference is nearly equally even (50%) among all respondents. There was no significant difference in vaccine preference according to age, gender, residence, educational level, or social status. About 50% of public respondents mentioned that both AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines do not offer protection against new variant COVID-19 strains. Healthcare workers are the lowest respondents to agree that vaccines offer protection against new COVID-19 variants (10.9%) compared to unemployed respondents (20.3%) and other professions (68.8%) with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.005). Safety of vaccine administration among children below 18 showed statistical differences for gender and educational level predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the study population has satisfying knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine. Continuous awareness campaigns must be carried out so that the people's background is updated with any new information that would help in raising the trust in vaccination.

Consistency of recommendations for pharmacotherapy of rheumatoid arthritis

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory arthropathy. Recommendations for RA, specifically on pharmacotherapy, are essential in clinical practice. However, the direction and strength of recommendations are controversial across current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of RA.

Objective: To systematically analyze the consistency of recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy of RA across CPGs.

Methods: 11 electronic databases and websites were comprehensively searched from inception to 14 March 2022, to identify CPGs for diagnosis, therapy, and management of RA. Unambiguous and discrete specifications of the population-intervention-comparison (PIC) framework were used to classify the recommendations. Based on the PIC framework, consistency analyses across CPGs on pharmacotherapy of RA were performed. Two researchers reached a consensus on coding the direction and strength of each recommendation.

Results: Finally, 26 CPGs were included in this study, and 14 of them, which included pharmacotherapy, were performed consistency analysis. 1) 64 recommendations from 14 CPGs were classified into 18 PICs. 2) Seven PICs (38%) were consistent in direction and strength, 10 PICs (56%) were consistent in direction but inconsistent in strength, and one PIC (6%) was inconsistent in direction (hydroxychloroquine, HCQ). 3) Sensitivity analysis tested the robustness, and the inconsistency remained high.

Conclusion: The direction was highly consistent among the recommendations of pharmacotherapy for RA, but the strength was highly inconsistent. Reasons for the inconsistency need to be further investigated, and consistent recommendations could guide the pharmacotherapy of RA in clinical practice.

Remdesivir Treatment in Moderately Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Single Center Study

Almost two years after remdesivir was approved and extensively used in numerous clinical studies for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, there is still no clear recommendation for the time and phase of the disease of remdesivir administration. This retrospective observational study included adults (≥18 years) with severe COVID-19, radiologically confirmed pneumonia, a need for supplemental oxygen and an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 10 days or less. All patients were treated with remdesivir for 5 to 10 days, or with clinical improvement within that period. The primary goal was the outcome in patients treated with remdesivir during the early stage of the disease considering the different disease severity. The median time from symptom onset to treatment was 8.4 days (3−10). Clinical improvements and good outcomes were observed in 104 of 137 patients (75.9%); 33 (24.1%) of 137 patients died. Subgroup analyses showed that the mortality rate was significantly lower in moderately ill patients (3 out of 51 patients; 5.9%) than in the group of severely/critically ill patients (30 out of 86 patients; 34.8%; p < 0.005). Older age, rise of CRP and CT score were shown to be significant predictors of disease outcome. Overall, remdesivir was well tolerated, and the treatment was discontinued in only four patients. The results of this observational study in 137 patients with different disease severity contribute to the attitude concerning remdesivir administration in the early stage of COVID-19, at least in moderately ill patients with a high risk of progression, before the transition to a more severe stage.

Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a massive mobilization of the scientific workforce. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020 to 2021, finding that 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020 to 2021 were to COVID-19–related papers. Across science, 98 of the 100 most-cited papers published in 2020 to 2021 were related to COVID-19. A large number of scientists received large numbers of citations to their COVID-19 work, often exceeding the citations they had received to all their work during their entire career. We document a strong covidization of research citations across science. This may have major repercussions for research priorities and the evolution of research on COVID-19 and beyond.

Massive scientific productivity accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020 to 2021 and assessed the impact on scientist citation profiles. Using Scopus data until August 1, 2021, COVID-19 items accounted for 4% of papers published, 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020 to 2021, and >30% of citations received in 36 of the 174 disciplines of science (up to 79.3% in general and internal medicine). Across science, 98 of the 100 most-cited papers published in 2020 to 2021 were related to COVID-19; 110 scientists received ≥10,000 citations for COVID-19 work, but none received ≥10,000 citations for non–COVID-19 work published in 2020 to 2021. For many scientists, citations to their COVID-19 work already accounted for more than half of their total career citation count. Overall, these data show a strong covidization of research citations across science, with major impact on shaping the citation elite.

Systematic Identification and Critical Appraisal of Pediatric COVID-19 Guidelines Applicable in India

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify and critically appraise the methodological quality of pediatric guidelines applicable to management of COVID-19 in India.

METHODS

Pediatric COVID-19 guidelines applicable to India, published until 30 April 2021, were identified through a systematic search across ten databases. Each was critically appraised for methodological quality using the AGREE-II tool, by at least two appraisers. Median (interquartile range) of the total score and domain-wise scores were calculated, and compared for Indian vs. foreign guidelines, updated vs. original versions of guidelines, and those developed earlier vs. later in the pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 62 guidelines was identified. Only 8 (12.9%) were published in India. The overall AGREE-II score ranged from 4.7% to 72.8%; with median (IQR) 37.9% (29.4, 48.6). This suggested overall low(er) methodological quality. The median (IQR) domain-wise scores were as follows: Scope and Purpose 66.7% (58.3, 83.3), Stakeholder Involvement 41.7% (30.6, 83.3), Rigor of Development 23.4% (14.8, 37.5), Clarity of Presentation 59.7% (50.0, 75.0), Applicability 27.1% (18.8, 33.3), and Editorial Independence 8.3% (0.0, 45.8). This suggested diversity in quality of different aspects of the guidelines, with very low quality in the critical domain of methodological rigor. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall scores of Indian vs. foreign guidelines, updated versions vs. original versions, and those developed earlier vs. later in the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The currently available pediatric COVID-19 guidelines have low methodological quality, adversely affecting their credibility, validity, and applicability. Urgent corrective strategies are presented for consideration.

Predictors of COVID-19 Fatality: A Worldwide Analysis of the Pandemic over Time and in Latin America

SARS-CoV-2 has infected over one hundred million people worldwide and has affected Latin America particularly severely in terms of both cases and deaths. This study aims to determine the association between SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 fatality rate worldwide over 8 months and to examine how this relationship differs between Latin America and all other countries. This cross-sectional study used March 2021 data from 169 countries. Multivariate regressions predicted COVID-19 fatality (outcome) from the number of SARS-CoV-2 tests (exposure), while controlling for other predictors. Results for March 2021 were compared to results from June 2020. Additionally, results for Latin America were also compared to all other countries except Latin American for March 2021. SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with a significant decrease in COVID-19 fatality rate in both June 2020 and March 2021 (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.96 and RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.00, respectively). SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with a significant decrease in COVID-19 fatality rate in Latin American countries but not in all other countries (RR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.89 and RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.82-1.11, respectively). However, the difference between the risk ratios for June 2020 and March 2021 and between the risk ratios for Latin America and all other countries were not statistically significant. Increased SARS-CoV-2 testing may be a significant predictor of lower COVID-19 case fatality rate, specifically in Latin American countries, due to the existence of a strong association, which may have driven the worldwide results.

Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients under Mechanical Ventilation with COVID-19 and Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Health Technology Assessment

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients under mechanical ventilation with COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A systematic review of the literature published in PubMed, Cochrane Library and LILACS databases, was performed. A manual search was also conducted using the reference lists of the studies included in the full-text assessment, as well as a grey-literature search on Google. Additionally, websites of state institutions and organizations developing clinical practice guidelines and health technology assessments were reviewed. The ClinicalTrials.gov website was screened along with the websites of the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and the National Registry of Health Research Projects of the Peruvian National Institute of Health. No restrictions were applied in terms of language, time, or country. A total of 13 documents were assessed, which included 7 clinical practice guidelines, 3 health technology assessments, 1 systematic review, 1 randomized clinical trial, and 1 observational study. A critical appraisal was conducted for each document. After this, we considered that the currently available evidence is insufficient for a conclusion supporting the use of ECMO in patients under mechanical ventilation with severe ARDS associated to COVID-19 in terms of mortality, safety, and quality of life.

An outlook on antigen-specific adoptive immunotherapy for viral infections with a focus on COVID-19

Although not a standard-of-care yet, adoptive immunotherapeutic approaches have gradually earned a place within the list of antiviral therapies for some of fatal and hard-to-treat viral diseases. To maintain robust antiviral immunity and to effectively target the viral particles and virally-infected cells, immune cells capable of recognizing the viral antigens are required. While conventional vaccination can induce these cells in vivo; another option is to prime and generate antigen-specific immune cells ex vivo. This approach has been successfully trialed for virulent opportunistic viral infections after bone marrow transplantation. Amid the crisis of SARS-CoV2 pandemic, which has been followed by the success of certain early-authorized vaccines; some institutions and companies have explored the effects of viral-specific adoptive cell transfers (ACTs) in trials, as alternative treatments. Aimed at outlining a perspective on antigen-specific adoptive immunotherapy for viral infections, this review article specifically provides an appraisal of ACT-based studies/trials on SARS-CoV2 infection.

The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature

We examined the extent to which the scientific workforce in different fields was engaged in publishing COVID-19-related papers. According to Scopus (data cut, 1 August 2021), 210 183 COVID-19-related publications included 720 801 unique authors, of which 360 005 authors had published at least five full papers in their career and 23 520 authors were at the top 2% of their scientific subfield based on a career-long composite citation indicator. The growth of COVID-19 authors was far more rapid and massive compared with cohorts of authors historically publishing on H1N1, Zika, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. All 174 scientific subfields had some specialists who had published on COVID-19. In 109 of the 174 subfields of science, at least one in 10 active, influential (top 2% composite citation indicator) authors in the subfield had authored something on COVID-19. Fifty-three hyper-prolific authors had already at least 60 (and up to 227) COVID-19 publications each. Among the 300 authors with the highest composite citation indicator for their COVID-19 publications, most common countries were USA (n = 67), China (n = 52), UK (n = 32) and Italy (n = 18). The rapid and massive involvement of the scientific workforce in COVID-19-related work is unprecedented and creates opportunities and challenges. There is evidence for hyper-prolific productivity.

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Background

Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs.

Results

We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence.

Conclusions

Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.

Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines.

METHODS

We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.