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.

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

Introducción: Las guías de práctica clínica (GPCs) se han desarrollado para apoyar a los profesionales de la salud a brindar una excelente atención médica a sus pacientes. Varias GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis se han desarrollado desde la última evaluación de calidad de GPCs publicada en 2009 y hasta el momento su calidad metodológica es poco clara. Objetivo: Evaluar sistemáticamente la calidad de GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis publicadas en el periodo de 2010-2020, utilizando el instrumento Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Material y métodos: Se realizaron búsquedas de GPCs en bases de datos, incluyendo MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS y en la literatura gris. La selección de GPCs y la extracción de datos se realizó de forma independiente por dos revisores. Cinco revisores, aparte, evaluaron las GPCs usando el instrumento AGREE II. Resultados: Diez y nueve GPCs cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión, en su mayoría desarrolladas en países de altos ingresos. Las puntuaciones medias de los dominios fueron: alcance y propósito (84,9% ± 14,7%), participación de las partes interesadas (65,5% ± 19,3%), rigor del desarrollo (66,7% ± 15,6%), claridad de presentación (72,8% ± 16,8%), aplicabilidad (46,6% ± 21,7%), e independencia editorial (57,0% ± 30,4%). Conclusiones: A pesar de que tres cuartos del total de GPCs incluidas fueron clasificadas como de alta calidad y más de la mitad de ellas se recomendaron para la práctica clínica, el desarrollo de las GPCs todavía debe optimizarse para mejorar su calidad. Especialmente en su aplicabilidad e independencia editorial, los cuales fueron los dominios con la puntuación más baja (AU)

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 (AU)

[Translated article] 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 (AU)

Introducción: Las guías de práctica clínica (GPCs) se han desarrollado para apoyar a los profesionales de la salud a brindar una excelente atención médica a sus pacientes. Varias GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis se han desarrollado desde la última evaluación de calidad de GPCs publicada en 2009 y hasta el momento su calidad metodológica es poco clara. Objetivo: Evaluar sistemáticamente la calidad de GPCs para el tratamiento de psoriasis publicadas en el periodo de 2010-2020, utilizando el instrumento Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Material y métodos: Se realizaron búsquedas de GPCs en bases de datos, incluyendo MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS y en la literatura gris. La selección de GPCs y la extracción de datos se realizó de forma independiente por dos revisores. Cinco revisores, aparte, evaluaron las GPCs usando el instrumento AGREE II. Resultados: Diez y nueve GPCs cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión, en su mayoría desarrolladas en países de altos ingresos. Las puntuaciones medias de los dominios fueron: alcance y propósito (84,9% ± 14,7%), participación de las partes interesadas (65,5% ± 19,3%), rigor del desarrollo (66,7% ± 15,6%), claridad de presentación (72,8% ± 16,8%), aplicabilidad (46,6% ± 21,7%), e independencia editorial (57,0% ± 30,4%). Conclusiones: A pesar de que tres cuartos del total de GPCs incluidas fueron clasificadas como de alta calidad y más de la mitad de ellas se recomendaron para la práctica clínica, el desarrollo de las GPCs todavía debe optimizarse para mejorar su calidad. Especialmente en su aplicabilidad e independencia editorial, los cuales fueron los dominios con la puntuación más baja (AU)

Monitorización de la presión esofágica durante la ventilación mecánica en pacientes críticos adultos: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis / Esophageal pressure monitoring during mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objetivo: Evaluar los efectos de la monitorización de la presión esofágica en pacientes adultos con requerimiento de ventilación mecánica en la Unidad de Terapia Intensiva. Diseño: Revisión sistemática (Registro PROSPERO CRD42018118583). Ámbito: Terapia intensiva. Cuidados críticos. Pacientes o participantes Adultos con requerimiento de ventilación mecánica en la Unidad de Terapia Intensiva. Intervenciones Monitorización de la presión esofágica. Variables de interés principales Mortalidad en terapia intensiva, días de hospitalización en terapia intensiva, días de ventilación mecánica, eventos adversos. Resultados Se incluyeron 4 estudios con 301 participantes. La monitorización de la presión esofágica durante la ventilación mecánica produciría poco o ningún efecto sobre la mortalidad en terapia intensiva a los 28 días (RR 0,74; IC 95% 0,31 a 1,76; participantes 261; estudios 2; I2: 68%), poca o ninguna diferencia en los días de hospitalización en terapia intensiva (DM 0,48; IC 95% −1,90 a 2,85; participantes 284; estudios 3; I2: 7%) o los eventos adversos (RR 0,74; IC 95% 0,50 a 1,09; participantes 261; estudios 2; I2: 0%). Existe incertidumbre sobre si la monitorización de la presión esofágica reduce los días de ventilación mecánica. Conclusiones La evidencia de certeza baja o muy baja indica que la monitorización de la presión esofágica durante la ventilación mecánica produciría poco o ningún efecto sobre la mortalidad en terapia intensiva, los días de hospitalización en terapia intensiva o ventilación mecánica y los eventos adversos. (AU)

Objective: To evaluate the effects of esophageal pressure monitoring in adult patients with mechanical ventilation requirements in the Intensive Care Unit. Design A systematic review (PROSPERO Register CRD42018118583) was carried out. Setting Intensive therapy. Critical care. Patients or participants Adults with mechanical ventilation requirement in the Intensive Care Unit. Interventions Esophageal pressure monitoring. Outcomes of interest Intensive Care Unit mortality and length of stay, mechanical ventilation days, adverse events. Results Four studies with 301 participants were included. Esophageal pressure monitoring during mechanical ventilation had little or no effect on mortality in intensive care at 28 days (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.76; participants 261; studies 2; I2: 68%), with little or no differences in ICU length of stay (MD 0.48; 95% CI −1.90 to 2.85; participants 284; studies 3; I2: 7%) or impact upon adverse events (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.09; participants 261; studies 2; I2: 0%). There is uncertainty about whether esophageal pressure monitoring reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation. Conclusions Evidence of low or very low certainty indicates that esophageal pressure monitoring during mechanical ventilation would produce little or no effect on Intensive Care Unit mortality, Intensive Care Unit length of stay, days on mechanical ventilation or adverse events. (AU)

Esophageal pressure monitoring during mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of esophageal pressure monitoring in adult patients with mechanical ventilation requirements in the Intensive Care Unit. DESIGN: A systematic review (PROSPERO Register CRD42018118583) was carried out. SETTING: Intensive therapy. Critical care. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Adults with mechanical ventilation requirement in the Intensive Care Unit. INTERVENTIONS: Esophageal pressure monitoring. OUTCOMES OF INTEREST: Intensive Care Unit mortality and length of stay, mechanical ventilation days, adverse events. RESULTS: Four studies with 301 participants were included. Esophageal pressure monitoring during mechanical ventilation had little or no effect on mortality in intensive care at 28 days (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.31-1.76; participants 261; studies 2; I2: 68%), with little or no differences in ICU length of stay (MD 0.48; 95% CI -1.90 to 2.85; participants 284; studies 3; I2: 7%) or impact upon adverse events (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50-1.09; participants 261; studies 2; I2: 0%). There is uncertainty about whether esophageal pressure monitoring reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low or very low certainty indicates that esophageal pressure monitoring during mechanical ventilation would produce little or no effect on Intensive Care Unit mortality, Intensive Care Unit length of stay, days on mechanical ventilation or adverse events.