Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Is there a standardized practice for the development of international ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease treatment guidelines?
Goldowsky, Alexander; Sen, Rohan; Hoffman, Gila; Feuerstein, Joseph D.
Afiliação
  • Goldowsky A; Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Sen R; Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Hoffman G; Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Feuerstein JD; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) ; 9(5): 408-417, 2021 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34733526
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Guidelines are published by international gastroenterology societies regarding the management of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) to help clinicians to provide high-quality patient care. We examined the guidelines for the quality and strength of evidence used to develop the recommendations, methods for grading evidence, differences in disease-specific recommendations, conflicts of interest, and plans for guideline updates.

METHODS:

A systematic search was performed on PubMed using "ulcerative colitis," "Crohn's disease," and "guidelines" in April 2019. International gastroenterology society websites were searched for UC- and CD-specific guidelines. Guidelines from 12 societies were examined by two authors. Chi-squared tests were used for comparing evidence-level grades, strength of recommendations, and reported conflicts of interest. Linear-regression modeling was used to evaluate the relationship between the number of authors and the number of recommendations in a given guideline.

RESULTS:

Of 28 guidelines reviewed, 25 (89%) used a total of three different systems to grade the level of evidence and 2 (7%) used an unknown system. Three (11%) reviewed guidelines did not provide a conflict-of-interest statement, while three (11%) provided a timeline for guideline updates. Of 1,265 total statements examined, 246 (19%) reported no grade of evidence quality or explicitly stated that the recommendation was based on "expert opinion." One hundred and thirty-five (22%) UC recommendations were noted to be "weak/conditional" and 95 (16%) did not have a recommendation strength. Two hundred and forty-two (37%) CD recommendations were noted to be "weak/conditional" and 151 (23%) did not have a recommendation strength.

CONCLUSION:

The majority of UC and CD guidelines are based on a low/very low quality of evidence and are further weakened due to the lack of homogeneity in specific aspects of management recommendations as well as conflicts of interest.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article