Evaluation of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.

Due to the unclear quality of the current guidelines, users may be confused about how to diagnose and treat achalasia. The objective of this work is to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current guidelines for diagnosing and treating achalasia and to determine the heterogeneity among recommendations. We systematically searched literature databases to retrieve relevant guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines. Key recommendations in the guidelines were extracted, and the reasons for the heterogeneity of the key recommendations between different guidelines were further analyzed. Seven guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia are included in this study. The overall score of three guidelines exceeded 60%. The average score in domain 5 was the lowest, at 41.8%. The average scores in domain 2, domain 3, and domain 6 were also low, at 45.4%, 57.1% and 56.9%, respectively. The main recommendations and quality of evidence for different guidelines vary greatly, mainly due to the different emphases among different guidelines, the lack of systematic retrieval, or the unfairness of evidence use in some guidelines. There are considerable differences in the methodological quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for achalasia. Additionally, the differences in the main recommendations and evidence support among guidelines are also obvious. Guideline developers should improve the above related factors to decrease the heterogeneity, and they should further formulate or update the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.

Systematic appraisal of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Hirschsprung's disease.

BACKGROUND: Some guidelines for management of Hirschsprung's disease (HSCR, HD) have been developed, but their quality is vague. This study will systematically assess the quality of guidelines and analyze the key recommendations and the best evidence for guidelines. METHODS: Applicable guidelines were retrieved using a systematic search of databases. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool was used to assess the quality of the guidelines. Then, the recommendations and evidence for the included guidelines were extracted and compared. RESULTS: A total of nine guidelines were included in this study, and only one had an overall standardized score of more than 60%, indicating that it is worthy of recommendation. The problems identified included ambiguous and low-quality evidence; obvious distributional heterogeneity among the recommendations; a lack of in-depth discussion on the interpretation of staging, diagnostic methods, conservative treatment, and surgical staging of disease. CONCLUSION: The quality of guidelines varies widely, and there is a lack of high-quality professional opinions and supporting evidence for the main recommendations. At present, only comprehensive guidelines can be considered high-quality and there is still room for improvement.