Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of the Quality of the Scientific Evidence and Conflicts of Interest in Practice Guidelines (2005-2013) for Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a condition that has a small but important risk of progressing to esophageal cancer. To date, no study has assessed the strength of evidence supporting the recommendations for BE. We sought to assess the overall quality of the recommendations and strength of the BE using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines published pertaining to BE. Every guideline was reviewed using the AGREE II format to assess the methodological rigor and validity of the guideline. Additionally, guidelines were reviewed for the level of evidence used to support recommendations, conflicts of interest (COI), and differences in recommendations. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata (version 12). RESULTS: In total, 234 manuscripts were identified of which 8 guidelines published between 2005 and 2013 pertained to BE. Seventy-five percentage (6/8) graded the evidence used to formulate recommendations. Of the 126 recommendations with supporting evidence, 6 % were supported by level A evidence, 49 % level B evidence, and 45 % level C evidence. Using the AGREE II format, the highest overall assessment grade was the BSG BE guideline (6.5 ± 0.6) followed by the AGA (5.5 ± 0.6). The highest rated domains were scope and purpose (mean 77 range 24-96) and clarity of presentation (mean 75), while the lowest rated domains were editorial independence (mean 32 range 0-92) and applicability of the guideline (mean 35 range 7-90). There was significant variability in recommendations regarding who to screen for BE and surveillance intervals. Finally, only 50 % of the guidelines disclosed if COI were present and 75 % (3/4) reported potentially relevant COI. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the BE guideline fail to meet the AGREE II domains, and most of the recommendations are level B or C quality evidence. Further interventions are necessary to improve the overall quality of the guidelines.

Systematic analysis underlying the quality of the scientific evidence and conflicts of interest in interventional medicine subspecialty guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of guidelines published by interventional medical societies. METHODS: We reviewed the interventional medicine subspecialty society websites of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (AABIP), American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN), American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) as of November 15, 2012, for published interventional guidelines. The study was performed between November 15, 2012, and January 1, 2013. The AABIP did not publish guidelines, so American Thoracic Society and American College of Chest Physicians guidelines were reviewed. All the guidelines were reviewed for graded levels of evidence, methods used to grade the evidence, and disclosures of conflicts of interest (COIs). RESULTS: Of 153 interventional guidelines evaluated, 4 were duplicates. Forty-six percent of guidelines (69 of 149) graded the quality of evidence using 7 different methods. The ASGE graded 71% of guidelines (46 of 65) compared with 29% (23 of 78) by the SCAI and 0 by the ASDIN (n=4) and the pulmonary societies (n=2). Of the 3425 recommendations reviewed, 11% (n=364) were supported by level A, 42% (n=1432) by level B, and 48% (n=1629) by level C. The mean age of the guidelines was 5.2 years. Additionally, 62% of the guidelines (92 of 149) failed to comment on COIs; when disclosed, 91% of guidelines (52 of 57) reported COIs. In total, 1827 COIs were reported by 45% of the authors (317 of 697), averaging 5.8 COIs per author. CONCLUSION: Most of the interventional guidelines failed to grade the evidence. When present, most guidelines used lower-quality evidence. Furthermore, most guidelines failed to disclose COIs. When commented on, numerous COIs were present. Future guidelines should clearly state the quality of evidence, use a standard grading system, be transparent regarding potential biases, and provide frequent updates.