Quality evaluation of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of radiation enteritis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of radioactive enteritis, compare their differences and reasons and provide some reference for updating them. METHODS: This study used guidelines related to radiation enteritis by searching a database. Four independent reviewers used the AGREE II evaluation tool to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines, collate their main recommendations, and analyze the highest evidence supporting the main recommendations. RESULTS: Six diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for radiation enteritis were included in this study, one of which, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, had an overall score of over 60%, which is worthy of clinical recommendation. In the diagnosis and treatment of radioactive rectal injury, the recommendations for hemorrhagic endoscopic treatment are mature and mainly include (I) argon plasma coagulation; (II) formalin treatment; (III) bipolar electrocoagulation; (IV) heater probe; (V) radiofrequency ablation; and (VI) cryoablation. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of radioactive enteritis guidelines is unequal; even in the same guidelines, different domains have a large difference. For radioactive rectal damage diagnosis, a type of endoscopic treatment recommendation is more mature, but the overall diagnosis and treatment of radioactive enteritis still lacks high-quality research evidence.

Evaluation of guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND: To systematically evaluate the quality of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection and to analyze the differences and reasons for the key recommendations in the guidelines. METHODS: Databases and websites were systematically searched to obtain guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. Four independent reviewers used the Guideline Evaluation Tool (AGREE II) to evaluate the included guidelines. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Fleiss' kappa coefficient were used to measure the consistency of evaluation guidelines between guide reviewers. Differences between guidelines and the reasons for the differences were analyzed by comparing the recommendations of different guidelines and the evidence supporting the recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 17 guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection were included in this study. The AGREE II scores of these guidelines were low overall, with 4 of them had a score of over 60%, which indicates that the guidelines are recommended, and 13 of them having a score ranging from 30 to 60%, which indicates that the guidelines are recommended but need to be revised, while no guideline had a score of 30% or less, which indicates that they were not recommended. The analysis of these guidelines found that there were some differences in the main recommendations. Not all guidelines recommend sequential therapy as the recommended therapy. Whether bismuth quadruple therapy should be used as the recommended first-line therapy is unclear. The antibiotic resistance rate is different in different regions. Combined with the local antibiotic sensitivity test, the eradication rate of Helicobacter pylori can be improved. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in the quality of Helicobacter pylori infection guidelines and the key recommendations. Improving the deficiencies of existing guidelines is an effective way to develop high-quality guidelines and make reasonable recommendations for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in the future.