Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia according to the RIGHT checklist: systematic review

Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3-52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7-65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8-55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37-55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended.

CONCLUSION

The overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains' applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations.

Clinical practice guidelines for frailty vary in quality but guide primary health care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To appraise the methodological quality, clinical applicability, and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for frailty in primary care and identify research gaps using evidence mapping.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, guideline databases, and frailty or geriatric society websites. Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II, AGREE-Recommendations Excellence, and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare checklist were used to evaluate overall quality for frailty CPGs as "high", "medium", or "low" quality. We used bubble plots to show recommendations in CPGs.

RESULTS

Twelve CPGs were identified. According to the overall quality evaluation, five CPGs were considered as high quality, six as medium quality, and one as low quality. The recommendations in CPGs were generally consistent and mainly focused on frailty prevention, identification, multidisciplinary, nonpharmacological, and other treatments. However, evidence was lacking in some areas, such as effective prevention strategies and implementation of recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The frailty CPGs vary in quality but have consistent recommendations that can guide clinical practice in primary care. This could point the way for future research to address existing gaps and facilitate the development of trustworthy CPGs for frailty.

Evaluation of reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia using the RIGHT checklist

BACKGROUND

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematologic malignancy. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of AML have great value in clinical practice. However, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML has not yet been evaluated. This is the first study aiming to evaluate the reporting quality of the most recent AML CPGs published worldwide using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) to extract CPGs for AML published between January 2016 and December 2020. Websites for guideline development organizations and medical associations were also searched. Two independent researchers assessed compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 checklist items and summarized reporting rates for the 7 domains of the RIGHT checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 16 guidelines, of which 3 (18.8%) were written in Chinese and 13 (81.3%) were written in English. The average overall reporting rate of the 16 guidelines was 52.9%, and only 7 CPGs (43.8%) had a reporting rate >50%. The average reporting rates of the 7 domains (basic information; background; evidence; recommendations; review and quality assurance; funding, declaration, and management of interests; and other information) were 79.2%, 62.5%, 38.8%, 53.6%, 21.9%, 32.8%, and 43.8%, respectively. For the 35 checklist items, the average reporting rate was 52.9%, and only 16 items had a reporting rate >50%, of which 5 items were reported by all the guidelines. There was 1 item which was not reported by any of the guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of recently published AML guidelines remains poor. While the recommendations of CPGs have great value in clinical practice, the reporting quality of CPGs for AML still needs to be improved.