Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Urticaria Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP).

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Management of urticaria can be optimized with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, the quality of recent urticaria CPGs remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To identify and appraise urticaria CPGs worldwide published in the last 5 years. METHODS: A search for relevant urticaria CPGs was conducted between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2022, using the following databases MEDLINE, Embase, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Evidence Search, Guidelines International Network, ECRI Guidelines Trust, Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines, Trip Medical Database, and DynaMed. The included CPGs were critically appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, Lenzer et al's red flags, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness. RESULTS: We included 21 urticaria CPGs. Most guidelines reviewed treatment recommendations of chronic spontaneous urticaria. The majority of guidelines were from European and Asian countries with high and high-middle sociodemographic index, written in English, and openly accessible. Seventeen guidelines (81%) had at least 1 AGREE II domain rated poor quality. Applicability, rigor of development, and stakeholder involvement were the 3 AGREE II domains that scored the lowest across guidelines. Appraisal with Lenzer et al's red flags showed that 18 guidelines (86%) raised at least 1 red flag indicating potential bias. The top 3 domains raising red flags were no inclusion of nonphysician experts/patient representative/community stakeholders, no or limited involvement of a methodologist in the evaluation of evidence, and lack of external review. Based on IOM's criteria of trustworthiness, 20 guidelines (95%) had 1 or more criteria that did not meet best practice standards. The 3 domains with the highest number of best practice standards not met were updating procedures, rating strength of recommendations, and external review. Guidelines scored highest for the AGREE II domains of defining scope and purpose and clarity of presentation, and had the most fully met IOM's best practice standard for articulation of recommendations. However, only 1 urticaria CPG by NICE was identified as rigorously developed across all 3 appraisal tools. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of urticaria CPGs in the last 5 years varied widely. Only the NICE urticaria guideline consistently demonstrated excellent quality, high trustworthiness, and low risk of bias. Use of a rigorous framework to rate certainty of evidence and grade strength of recommendation, involvement of methodologists, stakeholder engagement with external review, and clear guidance for updating can help improve the quality of future CPGs.