Characteristics and conflicting recommendations of clinical practice guidelines for COVID-19 management in children: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that should be rigorously developed to guide clinicians' decision-making. However, given the scarce evidence for certain vulnerable groups like children, CPGs' recommendations formulation could be challenging. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of CPGs for COVID-19 management in children. Documents were included if they claimed to be a "clinical practice guideline", published between January and October 2021, and described the process followed to issue their recommendations. We assessed the quality using the "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II" (AGREE-II) and described how the recommendations were reached. RESULTS: We found five CPGs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The median score on the overall AGREE-II evaluation was 61% (range: 49%-72%), and the score on the third domain referred to the rigor of methodological development was 52% (range: 25%-88%). Recommendations for remdesivir, tocilizumab, and intravenous immunoglobulin were heterogeneous across CPGs (in favor, against, no recommendation), as well as the methodologies used to present the evidence, perform the benefits/harms balance, and issue the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneous recommendations and justifications across CPGs were found in the three assessed topics. Future CPGs should describe in detail their evidence-to-decision process to issue reliable and transparent recommendations.

Effects of replacement therapies with clotting factors in patients with hemophilia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different prophylactic and episodic clotting factor treatments are used in the management of hemophilia. A summarize of the evidence is needed inform decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Central Cochrane Library, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to December 2020, which compared different factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225857). RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included in this review, of which six compared episodic with prophylactic treatment, all of them performed in patients with hemophilia A. Pooled results showed that, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (ratio of means [RM]: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.36), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.13). With significant difference between these subgroups (p = 0.003, I2 = 82.9%). In addition, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized joint bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.27), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.16). Without significant subgroup differences. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes according to GRADE methodology. The other studies compared different types of clotting factor concentrates (CFCs), assessed pharmacokinetic prophylaxis, or compared different frequencies of medication administration. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prophylactic treatment (at either low, intermediate, or high doses) is superior to episodic treatment for bleeding prevention. In patients with hemophilia A, the bleeding rate seems to have a dose-response effect. However, no study compared different doses of prophylactic treatment, and all results had a very low certainty of the evidence. Thus, future studies are needed to confirm these results and inform decision making.

Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico y manejo de la infección por Helicobacter pylori en enfermedades gastroduodenales en el Seguro Social de Salud del Perú (EsSalud) / Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroduodenal diseases of the Peruvian Health Social Security (EsSalud)

RESUMEN Introducción : El presente artículo resume las recomendaciones basadas en evidencia de la guía de práctica clínica (GPC) para el diagnóstico y manejo de la infección por Helicobacter pylori en enfermedades gastroduodenales. Métodos : Se conformó un grupo elaborador de la guía (GEG) que incluyó médicos especialistas y metodólogos que formuló siete preguntas clínicas a ser respondidas por la presente GPC. Se realizaron búsquedas sistemáticas de revisiones sistemáticas y -cuando se consideró pertinenteestudios primarios en PubMed y CCENTRAL durante diciembre 2019 y marzo 2020. Se seleccionó la evidencia para responder cada una de las preguntas clínicas planteadas y la certeza de la evidencia fue evaluada usando la metodología Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). En reuniones de trabajo periódicas, el GEG usó la metodología GRADE para revisar la evidencia y formular las recomendaciones, los puntos de buena práctica clínica y los flujogramas. Finalmente, la GPC fue aprobada con Resolución Resolución N° 104-IETSI-ESSALUD-2020. Resultados: La presente GPC abordó siete preguntas clínicas, divididas en cuatro temas. En base a dichas preguntas se formularon 12 recomendaciones (3 fuertes y 9 condicionales), 17 BPC, y dos flujogramas (uno de diagnóstico y otro de manejo). Conclusión : El presente artículo resume la metodología y las conclusiones basadas en evidencias de la GPC para el diagnóstico y manejo inicial de la infección por Helicobacter pylori en enfermedades gastroduodenales.

ABSTRACT Introduction : This article summarizes the evidence-based recommendations of the clinical practice guide (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroduodenal diseases. Methods : For the provision of these recommendations, a guideline development group (local GDG) was established, including medical specialists and methodologists that formulated seven clinical questions. Systematic searches of systematic reviews and -when it was considered pertinentprimary studies were conducted in PubMed and CENTRAL during December 2017 and July 2019. The evidence to answer each of the posed clinical questions was selected. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. In periodic work meetings, the local GDG used the GRADE methodology to review the evidence and formulate the recommendations, points of good clinical practice, and flowcharts. Finally, the CPG was approved with Resolution N° 104-IETSI-ESSALUD-2020. Results: This CPG addressed seven clinical questions, divided into four topics. Based on these questions, 12 recommendations (3 strong and 9 weak), 17 points of good clinical practice, and two flowcharts (one for diagnosis and another for management) were formulated. Conclusion : This article summarizes the methodology and evidence-based conclusions from the CPG for for the diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroduodenal diseases.

[Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management chronic infection of hepatitis viral C of the Peruvian Health Social Security (EsSalud)]. / Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la infección crónica por el virus de hepatitis C en el Seguro Social de Salud del Perú (EsSalud).

INTRODUCTION: This article summarizes the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic infection of hepatitis viral C of the Peruvian Health Social Security (EsSalud). OBJECTIVE: To provide clinical recommendations based on evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic infection of hepatitis viral C in EsSalud. METHODS: A guideline development group (GDG) was established, including medical specialists and methodologists. The GDG formulated 4 clinical questions to be answered in this CPG. Systematic searches of systematic reviews and primary studies (when pertinent) were conducted in PubMed, and Central (Cochrane) during 2019. The evidence was selected to answer each of the clinical questions. The accuracy of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. In periodic work meetings, the GEG used the GRADE methodology to review the evidence and formulate the recommendations, the points of good clinical practice and the treatment flowchart. Finally, the CPG was approved with Resolution No. 151-IETSIESSALUD-2019. RESULTS: The present CPG addressed 4 clinical questions of four topics: screening, diagnosis, staging and treatment. Based on these questions, 13 recommendations (8 strong recommendations and 5 weak recommendations), 27 points of good clinical practice, and 1 flowchart were formulated. CONCLUSION: This paper summarizes the methodology and evidencebased conclusions from the CPG for for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic infection of hepatitis viral C of the EsSalud.

[Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroduodenal diseases of the Peruvian Health Social Security (EsSalud)]. / Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico y manejo de la infección por Helicobacter pylori en enfermedades gastroduodenales en el Seguro Social de Salud del Perú (EsSalud).

INTRODUCTION: This article summarizes the evidence-based recommendations of the clinical practice guide (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroduodenal diseases. METHODS: For the provision of these recommendations, a guideline development group (local GDG) was established, including medical specialists andmethodologists that formulated seven clinical questions. Systematic searches of systematic reviews and -when it was considered pertinent- primary studies were conducted in PubMed and CENTRAL during December 2017 and July 2019. The evidence to answer each of the posed clinical questions was selected. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading ofRecommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. In periodic work meetings, the local GDG used the GRADE methodology to review the evidence and formulate the recommendations, points of good clinical practice, and flowcharts. Finally, the CPG was approved with Resolution N° 104-IETSI-ESSALUD-2020. RESULTS: This CPG addressed seven clinical questions, divided into four topics. Based on these questions, 12 recommendations (3 strong and 9 weak), 17 points of good clinical practice, and two flowcharts (one for diagnosis and another for management) were formulated. CONCLUSION: This article summarizes the methodology and evidence-based conclusions from the CPG for for the diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroduodenal diseases.

Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la retinopatía diabética y edema macular diabético: guía de práctica clínica del Seguro Social de Salud del Perú (EsSalud) / Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema: clinical practice guidelines of the Peruvian Health Social Security (EsSalud)

RESUMEN Introducción. El presente artículo resume la guía de práctica clínica (GPC) para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la retinopatía diabética y el edema macular diabético en el Seguro Social de Salud del Perú (EsSalud). Objetivo. Proveer recomendaciones clínicas basadas en evidencia para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la retinopatía diabética y el edema macular diabético en EsSalud. Métodos. Se conformó un grupo elaborador de la guía (GEG) que incluyó médicos especialistas y metodólogos. El GEG formuló 4 preguntas clínicas a ser respondidas por la presente GPC. Para cada una de estas preguntas se realizó búsquedas de revisiones sistemáticas y de estudios primarios (cuando se consideró pertinente) en PubMed durante el 2018. Se seleccionó la evidencia para responder cada una de las preguntas clínicas planteadas. La certeza de la evidencia fue evaluada usando la metodología Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). En reuniones de trabajo periódicas, el GEG usó la metodología GRADE para revisar la evidencia y formular las recomendaciones, los puntos de buena práctica clínica y el flujograma de manejo. Resultados. La presente GPC abordó 4 preguntas clínicas sobre el tamizaje, diagnóstico, tratamiento de elección y tratamiento adyuvante. En base a estas preguntas se formularon 6 recomendaciones (4 fuertes y 2 condicionales), 19 puntos de buena práctica clínica y 1 flujograma de manejo. Conclusión. El presente artículo resume la metodología y las conclusiones basadas en evidencias de la GPC para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la retinopatía diabética y el edema macular diabético en EsSalud.

ABSTRACT Introduction. This article summarizes the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema of the Health Social Security of Peru (EsSalud). Objective. To provide clinical recommendations based on evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema in EsSalud. Methods. A guidelines elaborating group (GEG) was conformed by medical specialists and methodologists. The GEG formulated 4 clinical questions intended to be answered by this CPG. For each of these questions systematic searches of systematic reviews and primary studies (when considered pertinent) were carried out in PubMed during 2018. Evidence was selected in order to reply each of the proposed clinical questions. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. During periodic working meetings, the GEG used the GRADE methodology to review the evidence and formulate the recommendations, points of good clinical practice and the management flowchart. Results. The present CPG addressed 4 clinical questions of four topics: screening, diagnosis, treatment of choice and adjuvant treatment. Based on these questions, 6 recommendations (4 strong and 2 conditional), 19 points of good clinical practice, and 1 management flowchart were formulated. Conclusion. This article summarizes the methodology and conclusions based on evidence from the CPG for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema in EsSalud.

Guía de práctica clínica para el tratamiento quirúrgico de pacientes con urolitiasis en el Seguro Social del Perú (EsSalud) / Clinical practice guideline for the surgical treatment of patients with urolithiasis for the Peruvian Social Security (EsSalud)

Introducción. El presente artículo resume la guía de práctica clínica (GPC) para el tratamiento quirúrgico de pacientes con urolitiasis en el Seguro Social del Perú (EsSalud). Objetivo. Proveer recomendaciones clínicas basadas en evidencias para la para el tratamiento quirúrgico de los pacientes con urolitiasis en EsSalud. Método. Se conformó un grupo elaborador de la guía (GEG) constituido por médicos urólogos y metodólogos, los cuales formularon las preguntas clínicas que fueron respondidas dentro de la presente GPC. Para cada una de estas preguntas se realizó búsquedas de revisiones sistemáticas y de estudios primarios (cuando se consideró pertinente) en PubMed durante el 2018. Se seleccionó la evidencia para responder cada una de las preguntas clínicas planteadas, posteriormente se evaluó la certeza de la evidencia usando la metodología Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Se programaron reuniones de trabajo periódicas en las cuales el GEG revisó la evidencia y formuló recomendaciones, puntos de buenas prácticas clínicas y flujogramas usando la metodología GRADE. La GPC fue aprobada con Resolución N° 66- IETSI-ESSALUD-2018. Resultados. Se abordó 6 preguntas clínicas sobre el tema de tratamiento quirúrgico en urolitiasis. En base a dichas preguntas se formularon 5 recomendaciones (2 recomendaciones fuertes y 3 recomendaciones condicionales), 21 puntos de buena práctica clínica, y 3 flujogramas de manejo. Conclusión. El presente artículo resume la metodología y las conclusiones basadas en evidencias de la GPC para el tratamiento quirúrgico de pacientes con urolitiasis en EsSalud.

Introduction. This article summarizes the clinical practice guide (CPG) for the surgical treatment of patients with urolithiasis in the Social Security of Peru (EsSalud). Objective. To provide clinical recommendations based on evidence for the surgical treatment of patients with urolithiasis in EsSalud. Method. A guideline group (GEG) constituted by urologists and methodologists was formed, who formulated the clinical questions that were answered within the present CPG. For each of these questions systematic searches of systematic reviews and primary studies (when considered pertinent) were carried out in PubMed during 2018. The evidence was selected to answer each one of the clinical questions posed, later the certainty was evaluated of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Regular work meetings were scheduled, in which the GEG reviewed the evidence and made recommendations, points of good clinical practice, and flow charts; using the GRADE methodology. The CPG was approved with Resolution No. 66-IETSI-ESSALUD-2018. Results. Six clinical questions on the subject of surgical treatment in urolithiasis were addressed. Based on these questions, 5 recommendations were formulated (2 strong recommendations and 3 conditional recommendations), 21 points of good clinical practice, and 3 management flow charts. Conclusion. This article summarizes the methodology and conclusions based on evidence from the CPG for the surgical treatment of patients with urolithiasis in EsSalud.

Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico y manejo de la osteoartritis en el Seguro Social del Perú (EsSalud) / Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoarthritis in Peruvian Social Security (EsSalud)

Este artículo resume la guía de práctica clínica (GPC) para el diagnóstico y manejo de pacientes con osteoartritis (OA) del Seguro Social del Perú (EsSalud). Para su desarrollo se conformó un grupo elaborador de la guía (GEG) que incluyó a especialistas clínicos y metodólogos. Para responder las 13 preguntas clínicas planteadas se realizaron búsquedas sistemáticas en PubMed y repositorios de GPC. Se usó la metodología Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia. Se emitieron 11 recomendaciones: tres fuertes (no solicitar de forma rutinaria radiografías para el diagnóstico de OA, brindar un plan individualizado de medidas de educación y autocuidado, indicar la realización de ejercicio físico) y ocho débiles (intervenciones para reducir el peso en personas con obesidad o sobrepeso, evitar el uso de paracetamol para el manejo de OA, promover el uso de AINE orales para el manejo de OA, evitar el uso de condroitín sulfato para el manejo de OA, evitar el uso de proloterapia para el manejo de OA, en adultos con OA y dolor refractario a manejo farmacológico considerar terapias adyuvantes como ultrasonido o similares, evitar el uso de terapia laser como adyuvante para el manejo de OA, evitar el uso de acupuntura para el manejo de OA); además, 20 puntos de buena práctica clínica y un flujograma de trabajo.

This paper summarizes the clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the diagnosis and management of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in the Peruvian Social Security health system (EsSalud). A working group was formed for producing this guideline, and this group included both clinical specialists and methodologists. Systematic searches in PubMed and CPG repositories were performed aiming to answer the 13 clinical questions that were asked. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method was used aiming to determine the certainty of evidence. Eleven recommendations were issued: three were strong (do not request X-ray films as routine practice, give an individualized plan including educational and self-care measures, and prescribe physical activity; and eight were weak (weight-reducing interventions for persons with obesity or who are overweight, avoid the use of paracetamol for OA management, promote the use of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for OA management, avoid the use of chondroitin sulfate for OA management, avoid the use of prolotherapy for OA management in affected adults, particularly in those with refractory pain not responding to drug therapy, consider the use of adjuvant therapy, such as ultrasound and the like, avoid the use of laser therapies as adjuvant for OA management, and avoid the use of acupuncture for OA management); also, 20 items for good clinical practice and a workflow sheet were issued.