AGREE-II Appraisal of a clinical algorithm for hypotonia assessment

Identifying and Evaluating Young Children with Developmental Central Hypotonia: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Tools

Children with developmental central hypotonia have reduced muscle tone secondary to non-progressive damage to the brain or brainstem. Children may have transient delays, mild or global functional impairments, and the lack of a clear understanding of this diagnosis makes evaluating appropriate interventions challenging. This overview aimed to systematically describe the best available evidence for tools to identify and evaluate children with developmental central hypotonia aged 2 months to 6 years. A systematic review of systematic reviews or syntheses was conducted with electronic searches in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, and PEDro and supplemented with hand-searching. Methodological quality and risk-of-bias were evaluated, and included reviews and tools were compared and contrasted. Three systematic reviews, an evidence-based clinical assessment algorithm, three measurement protocols, and two additional measurement tools were identified. For children aged 2 months to 2 years, the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination has the strongest measurement properties and contains a subset of items that may be useful for quantifying the severity of hypotonia. For children aged 2-6 years, a clinical algorithm and individual tools provide guidance. Further research is required to develop and validate all evaluative tools for children with developmental central hypotonia.

Effectiveness, quality and implementation of pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome algorithms in pediatric intensive care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome are conditions that often coexist, algorithms can be used to assist healthcare professionals in decision making. However, a comprehensive review is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness, quality, and implementation of algorithms for the management of pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in all pediatric intensive care settings.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on November 29, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar to identify algorithms implemented in pediatric intensive care and published since 2005. Three reviewers independently screened the records for inclusion, verified and extracted data. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the JBI checklists, and algorithm quality was assessed using the PROFILE tool (higher % = higher quality). Meta-analyses were performed to compare algorithms to usual care on various outcomes (length of stay, duration and cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, length of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of withdrawal).

Results

From 6,779 records, 32 studies, including 28 algorithms, were included. The majority of algorithms (68%) focused on sedation in combination with other conditions. Risk of bias was low in 28 studies. The average overall quality score of the algorithm was 54%, with 11 (39%) scoring as high quality. Four algorithms used clinical practice guidelines during development. The use of algorithms was found to be effective in reducing length of stay (intensive care and hospital), length of mechanical ventilation, duration of analgesic and sedative medications, cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, and incidence of withdrawal. Implementation strategies included education and distribution of materials (95%). Supportive determinants of algorithm implementation included leadership support and buy-in, staff training, and integration into electronic health records. The fidelity to algorithm varied from 8.2% to 100%.

Conclusions

The review suggests that algorithm-based management of pain, sedation and withdrawal is more effective than usual care in pediatric intensive care settings. There is a need for more rigorous use of evidence in the development of algorithms and the provision of details on the implementation process.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021276053, PROSPERO [CRD42021276053].

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on insomnia using the RIGHT statement and AGREE II instrument

OBJECTIVE

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) have an indispensable role in guiding the selection of various treatments for insomnia, however, little is known about the quality of released insomnia CPGs. This study aims to critically appraise the quality of existing insomnia CPGs and identify quality limitations.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, China Biology Medicine disc, and 6 databases of international guideline developing institutions were systematically searched. CPGs on the diagnosis or treatment of insomnia were included. Reviewers independently extracted basic information and development methods, and assessed methodological quality and reporting quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the agreement among reviewers and assess inter-rater reliability.

RESULTS

Twenty-six CPGs were identified that focused on adults, children, or children with autistic spectrum disorder, patients in the intensive care unit, patients with cancer and pregnant, lactating or menopausal women. Twenty-two CPGs used nine grading systems to rate the level of evidence and strength of recommendation. 53.85% CPGs were classified as "recommended with modification" according to the AGREE II scores (ICC from 0.64 to 0.90), and 2 CPGs were "recommended". The "clarity of presentation" domain achieved the highest mean score (67.9% ± 11.04%) but the "applicability" domain (37.1% ± 12.67%) achieved the lowest. The average reporting rate of RIGHT items in all guidelines was 67.87%.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of guidelines varied substantially. Guideline developers should realize the importance of guideline applicability, patients' preferences and values.