Methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for genetic testing in children: A systematic assessment using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II instrument.

Genetic testing of children is faced with numerous problems. High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are needed to ensure its safe, and appropriate use. This study aimed to systematically identify the current CPGs for genetic testing in children, and to assess the methodological quality of these CPGs.We searched 6 databases, 3 guideline clearinghouses, and 9 web sites of relevant academic agencies from inception to February 2019. CPGs focused on genetic testing in children were included. Four reviewers independently appraised the quality of the eligible CPGs using the appraisal of guidelines for research, and evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.Seventeen CPGs meeting our inclusion criteria were included. Among them, 16 CPGs were focused on the genetic diagnosis/evaluation of diseases, while only 1 CPG was focused on pharmacogenetics. The median domain scores from highest to lowest were: scope and purpose 80.56% (range: 56.95%-87.50%), clarity of presentation 72.22% (range: 45.83%-88.89%), stakeholder involvement 45.83% (range: 27.78%-55.56%), applicability 31.25% (range: 19.79%-54.17%), rigor of development 21.88%, (range: 13.02%-71.88%), and editorial independence 18.75% (range: 0%-83.33%). According to the overall quality, 6 (35%) CPGs were "not recommended," 8 (47%) CPGs were "recommended with modifications," and only 3 (18%) CPGs were "recommended." The clinical topics of the "recommended" CPGs were warfarin, familial Mediterranean fever, and pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension.The quality of CPGs for genetic testing in children was generally low, and variable across different CPGs and different AGREE II domains. In future guideline development, more attention should be paid to the aspects of stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. Not only will guideline users benefit from our results when determining whether to adopt related CPGs to guide genetic testing in children, but guideline developers could also take into account our results to improve the quality of future CPGs.

Volatile anesthetics versus total intravenous anesthesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: An updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of volatile anesthetics in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients remain controversial. We aimed to conduct an updated meta-analysis to assess whether the use of volatile anesthetics during CABG could reduce mortality and other outcomes. METHODS: We searched eight databases from inception to June 2019 and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of volatile anesthetics versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in CABG patients. The primary outcomes were operative mortality and one-year mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital and postoperative safety outcomes (myocardial infarction, heart failure, arrhythmia, stroke, delirium, postoperative cognitive impairment, acute kidney injury, and the use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or other mechanical circulatory support). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to control for random errors. RESULTS: A total of 89 RCTs comprising 14,387 patients were included. There were no significant differences between the volatile anesthetics and TIVA groups in operative mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-1.24, p = 0.59, I2 = 0%), one-year mortality (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.32-1.26, p = 0.19, I2 = 51%), or any of the postoperative safety outcomes. The lengths of stay in the ICU and hospital were shorter in the volatile anesthetics group than in the TIVA group. TSA revealed that the results for operative mortality, one-year mortality, length of stay in the ICU, heart failure, stroke, and the use of IABP were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional meta-analysis suggests that the use of volatile anesthetics during CABG is not associated with reduced risk of mortality or other postoperative safety outcomes when compared with TIVA. TSA shows that the current evidence is insufficient and inconclusive. Thus, future large RCTs are required to clarify this issue.