Consensus and controversy among severe pancreatitis surgery guidelines: a guideline evaluation based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool

Assessment of guidelines for bariatric and metabolic surgery: a systematic review and evaluation using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II)

BACKGROUND

In recent years, multiple guidelines on bariatric and metabolic surgery were published, however, their quality remains unknown, leaving providers with uncertainty when using them to make perioperative decisions. This study aims to evaluate the quality of existing guidelines for perioperative bariatric surgery care.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE were conducted from January 2010 to October 2022 for bariatric clinical practice guidelines. Guideline evaluation was carried out using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) framework.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1483 citations, of which, 26 were included in final analysis. The overall median domain scores for guidelines were: (1) scope and purpose: 87.5% (IQR: 57-94%), (2) stakeholder involvement: 49% (IQR: 40-64%), (3) rigor of development: 42.5% (IQR: 22-68%), (4) clarity of presentation: 85% (IQR: 81-90%), (5) applicability: 6% (IQR: 3-16%), (6) editorial independence: 50% (IQR: 48-67%), (7) overall impressions: 48% (IQR: 33-67%). Only six guidelines achieved an overall score >70%.

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric surgery guidelines effectively outlined their aim and presented recommendations. However, many did not adequately seek patient input, state search criteria, use evidence rating tools, and consider resource implications. Future guidelines should reference the AGREE II framework in study design.

Timing of CHolecystectomy In Severe PAncreatitis (CHISPA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Acute pancreatitis is the recurrent reason for gastrointestinal admission in a clinical urgent setting, it happens secondary to a wide array of pathologies out of which biliary disease stands as one of the most frequent causes for its presentation. Approximately 20% of pancreatitis are of moderate or severe severity. Currently, there is not a clear recommendation on timing for cholecystectomy, either early or delayed. CHISPA is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, superior clinical trial. An intention-to-treat analysis will be performed. It seeks to evaluate differences between patients taken to early cholecystectomy during hospital admission (72 hours after randomization) versus delayed cholecystectomy (30±5 days after randomization). The primary endpoint is major complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy defined as a Clavien-Dindo score of over III/V during the first 90 days after the procedure. Secondary endpoints include recurrence of biliary disease, minor complications (Clavien-Dindo score below III/V), days of postoperative hospital stay, and length of stay in an intensive therapy unit postoperatively (if it applies). The CHISPA trial has been designed to demonstrate that delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduces the rate of complications associated to an episode of severe biliary pancreatitis compared to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Trial registration number: NCT06113419.

Chinese herbal medicine and COVID-19: quality evaluation of clinical guidelines and expert consensus and analysis of key recommendations

To systematically review the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), assess the methodological quality as well as clinical credibility and implementability of specific recommendations, and summarize key recommendations.

Methods

As of April 2022, we conducted a comprehensive search on major electronic databases, guideline websites, academic society websites, and government websites to assess the methodological quality and clinical applicability of the included CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Evaluation-Recommendations EXcellence (AGREE-REX) instructions, respectively.

Results

The search yielded 61 CPGs, which were mostly published in 2020; moreover, 98.4% of the CPGs were published in China. Only five CPGs achieved a high-quality AGREE II rating; further, six CPGs could be directly recommended, with most of the CPGs still showing much room for improvement. CPGs had a low overall score in the AGREE-REX evaluation, with the domains of clinical applicability, values and preferences, and implementability being standardized in 21.80% ± 12.56%, 16.00% ± 11.81%, and 31.33% ± 14.55% of the CPGs, respectively. Five high-quality CPGs mentioned 56 Chinese herbal formulas. Half of the recommendations had moderate or strong evidence level in the GRADE evaluation. The most frequently recommended herbal medicines were Lianhua Qingwen granule/capsule and Jinhua Qinggan granule; however, the strength of recommendation for each prescription varied across CPGs and populations.

Conclusions

The overall quality of current CPGs for COVID-19 for CHM still needs to be improved; moreover, the strength of the evidence remains to be standardized across CPGs.

Graphical abstract

http://links.lww.com/AHM/A34.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of guidelines for gastric cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Background

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common type of cancer globally. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of gastric cancer.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), China Biology Medicine, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang databases and the websites of the main guideline development organizations from 2018 to 2020 for guidelines on gastric cancer. Data were extracted and the reporting quality evaluated by two researchers independently using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. We assessed the compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 items of RIGHT and summarized the reporting proportions of the seven domains of RIGHT.

Results

Eighteen guidelines were included. The mean proportion of appropriately reported RIGHT items was 52.4%. Among the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, Basic information had the highest reporting rate (78.7%), and Review and quality assurance domain the lowest rate (16.7%). The domains Evidence (40.0%), Funding and declaration and management of interests (43.1%), and Other information (31.5%) had also reporting rates below 50%. Two RIGHT items (17 and 19b) were not reported by any of the guidelines.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of gastric cancer guidelines published in the years 2018-2020 was suboptimal, especially regarding the reporting of review, quality assurance and evidence. Guideline developers should pay attention on rigorous reporting following international standard to improve the quality of guidelines.