Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP): a systematic review of alopecia areata clinical practice guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring alopecia with an estimated global prevalence of 2% and limited data on the efficacy of current treatment. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide recommendations based on best available evidence. It is unclear how many AA CPGs are available globally. AIM: To systematically search for and identify CPGs on AA and to critically appraise their quality using validated tools. METHODS: We performed a literature search to identify CPGs published between October 2014 and April 2021, using the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Guidelines International Network, Emergency Care Research Institute guidelines trust, Australian CPGs, Turning Research Into Practice database and DynaMed. The systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework. Three critical appraisal tools were used: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, Lenzer's red flags and United States Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness. RESULTS: In total, six AA CPGs from seven manuscripts (one CPG was in two parts published in separate papers) were included. The majority (four of six) of the CPGs focused on treatment. Four CPGs (total of five papers) were in English and two CPGs were only available in the original language (one Russian and one Japanese). All AA CPGs demonstrated low quality in several domains in the AGREE II appraisal, including stakeholder involvement and applicability, with the latter being deemed the worst domain for all CPGs, with an average of 29%. The mean (SD) number of Lenzer's red flags for the included CPGs was 3.4 (1.5) out of a total of 8 possible red flags, while the IOM criteria showed 1.6 (0.8) 'fully met' criteria and 3.1 (1.2) 'not met' out of a total of 9 criteria. CONCLUSION: We found a limited number of AA CPGs, all of which had significant methodological deficiencies. We encourage guideline development groups to use validated checklists/tools to develop reliable and trustworthy CPGs.

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

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.