Quality assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased considerably in recent years. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPG) have been developed for the management of this disease across different clinical contexts, however, little evidence exists on their methodological quality. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs for the diagnosis and treatment of IBD using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: We identified CPGs by searching databases (MEDLINE - PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS) and other sources of gray literature on January 2022. We included guidelines with specific recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of IBD and evaluated them with the AGREE II instrument to assess their methodological quality. Six independent reviewers assessed the quality of the guidelines and resolved conflicts by consensus. We assessed the degree of agreement using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and change in quality over time was appraised in two periods: from 2012 to 2017 and from 2018 to 2022. RESULTS: We analyzed and evaluated 26 CPGs that met the inclusion criteria. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (ICC: 0.74; 95% CI 0.36 - 0.89). The mean scores of the AGREE II domains were: "Scope and purpose" 84.51%, "Stakeholder involvement" 60.90%, "Rigor of development" 69.95%, "Clarity of presentation" 85.58%, "Applicability" 26.60%, and "Editorial independence" 62.02%. No changes in quality were found over time. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the CPGs evaluated was generally good, with a large majority of the assessed guidelines being "recommended" and "recommended with modifications"; despite this, there is still room for improvement, especially in terms of stakeholder involvement and applicability. Efforts to develop high quality CPGs for IBD need to be further optimized.

Quality Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Psoriasis Using the AGREE II Tool. / Evaluación de la calidad de guías de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de psoriasis mediante la herramienta AGREE II.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to help health professionals provide patients with excellent medical care. The last critical appraisal of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis evaluated publications up to 2009, but several new guidelines have been published since and their methodological quality remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of CPGs on the treatment of psoriasis published between 2010 and 2020 using the Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched for relevant CPGs in MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribean Health Sciences Literature) as well as in the gray literature. Two reviewers working independently selected the guidelines for analysis and extracted the relevant data. Each guideline was then assessed using the AGREE II instrument by 5 reviewers, also working independently. RESULTS: Nineteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria and most of them had been produced in high-income countries. The mean (SD) domain scores were 84.9% (14.7%) for scope and purpose, 65.5% (19.3%) for stakeholder involvement, 66.7% (15.6%) for rigor of development, 72.8% (16.8%) for clarity of presentation, 46.6% (21.7%) for applicability, and 57.0% (30.4%) for editorial independence. CONCLUSIONS: Although about three-quarters of the CPGs assessed were judged to be of high quality and over half were recommended for use in clinical practice, standards of guideline development need to be raised to improve CPG quality, particularly in terms of applicability and editorial independence, which had the lowest scores in our evaluation.

Transferencia del conocimiento: Cochrane, Wikipedia e iniciativas con estudiantes / Knowledge translation: Cochrane, Wikipedia and students' initiatives

Cochrane es una colaboración internacional cuya misión es promover la toma de decisiones sobre salud basada en la evidencia, mediante la realización de revisiones sistemáticas de alta calidad, relevantes y accesibles; así como a través de otros formatos en los cuales se resumen las evidencias científicas que se generan a partir de la ejecución de las revisiones sistemáticas Cochrane. La transferencia del conocimiento (Knowledge translation) promueve el uso real del conocimiento científico y Cochrane ha impulsado diversos proyectos con esta temática. Uno de ellos consiste en un convenio con Wikipedia para la mejora de la calidad de los artículos relacionados con la salud que se encuentran en esta enciclopedia digital. En este artículo se resumen las características principales de estas iniciativas.

Cochrane is an international collaboration whose mission is to promote evidence-based decision-making on health. This is done by conducting high-quality, relevant and accessible systematic reviews, as well as through other forms of summarized scientific evidence. Knowledge translation promotes the real use of scientific knowledge and Cochrane has been developing various projects within this theme. One of those projects includes a collaboration with Wikipedia to improve the quality of information provided in the medical articles published in this digital encyclopaedia. This article summarizes the main characteristics of these initiatives.

Remoción selectiva comparado con remoción total para caries dentinarias profundas / Selective removal compared to complete removal for deep carious lesions

INTRODUCCIÓN La caries dental ha sido convencionalmente manejada mediante la remoción no selectiva del tejido carioso (remoción total), sin embargo, los efectos adversos de este procedimiento han promovido la utilización de técnicas de remoción de caries conservadoras (remoción selectiva), pero aún existe controversia respecto a su efectividad. MÉTODOS Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metaanálisis, preparamos tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES Identificamos siete revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron siete estudios primarios, todos ellos correspondientes a ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que la remoción selectiva de caries podría disminuir la necesidad de tratamiento de endodoncia y el riesgo de exposición pulpar en dientes con caries profundas, pero la certeza de la evidencia es baja. No existe claridad de que la remoción selectiva de caries disminuya el riesgo de aparición de signos y síntomas de patología pulpar y el riesgo de fracaso de las restauraciones ya que la certeza de la evidencia es muy baja.

INTRODUCTION Dental caries have been conventionally managed by non-selective removal of carious tissue (total complete removal); however, the adverse effects of this procedure have promoted the use of conservative caries removal techniques (selective removal), but there is still controversy regarding its effectiveness. METHODS We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS We identified seven systematic reviews including seven studies overall, of which all were randomized trials. We concluded that selective caries removal may decrease the need for root canal treatment and the risk of pulp exposure in teeth with deep caries, but the certainty of the evidence is low. It is not clear whether the selective removal of caries reduces the risk of appearance of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and the risk of restorations failure, as the certainty of the evidence is very low.