Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A critical appraisal of the quality of low back pain practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool and comparison with previous evaluations: a EuroAIM initiative.
Doniselli, Fabio Martino; Zanardo, Moreno; Manfrè, Luigi; Papini, Giacomo Davide Edoardo; Rovira, Alex; Sardanelli, Francesco; Sconfienza, Luca Maria; Arana, Estanislao.
  • Doniselli FM; Postgraduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
  • Zanardo M; PhD Course in Integrative Biomedical Research, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli, 31, 20133, Milan, Italy. moreno.zanardo@unimi.it.
  • Manfrè L; Department of Neurosurgery/Interventional Radiology, Minimal Invasive Spine Therapy, Institute of Oncology in Mediterranean (IOM), Viagrande, Catania, Italy.
  • Papini GDE; Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
  • Rovira A; Section of Neuroradiology and Magnetic Resonance Unit, Department of Radiology (IDI), Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Sardanelli F; Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
  • Sconfienza LM; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Pascal 36, 20100, Milano, Italy.
  • Arana E; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Pascal 36, 20100, Milano, Italy.
Eur Spine J ; 27(11): 2781-2790, 2018 11.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30220040
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To assess the methodologic quality of guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP) and compare their recommendations.

METHODS:

No ethics committee approval was needed for this systematic review. In March 2017, a systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to find practice guidelines of assessment and management of LBP. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool, and the results were compared with previous appraisals performed in 2004 and 2009.

RESULTS:

Of 114 retrieved guidelines, eight were appraised. All except one reached the level of "acceptable" in overall result, with two of them reaching the highest scores. Only two guidelines reached a level of "acceptable" in every domain; the others had at least one domain with low scores. The guidelines had the higher scores (range = 63-94%) on "Scope and purpose" and "Clarity of presentation" (47-89%). "Stakeholder Involvement" has the highest variability between the guidelines results (40-96%). "Rigor of Development" reached an intermediate mean result (34-90%), "Applicability" (42-70%), and "Editorial Independence" (38-85%). Only three guidelines had a radiologist among authors and reached higher scores compared to guidelines without a radiologist among the authors. Compared to previous assessments, low-level guidelines were 53% in 2004, 36% in 2009, and 13% in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS:

Considering all guidelines, only one had a "low" overall score, while half of them were rated as of "high" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto / Dolor de la Región Lumbar Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto / Dolor de la Región Lumbar Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article