E Kis1, I Szegesdi, E Dobos, E Nagy, K Boda, L Kemény, A R Horvath. 1. Burn and Plastic Surgery Unit, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University of Szeged, Medical Faculty, Albert Szent-Györgyi Clinical Center, 6-8 Korányi fasor, Szeged, Hungary. plasztika@yahoo.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are available for managing burn injury patients but clinical practice is highly variable. We report the first steps to trans-contextual adaptation of international burn CPGs to local settings. METHODS: Key clinical topics and questions to be covered in the final guideline were defined and prioritized. Systematic search between 1990 and 2008 retrieved 546 citations, of which 24 were CPGs on the general and intensive care of burn patients. Assessment of the clinical content of CPGs was carried out. Methodological quality of CPGs was evaluated using the AGREE instrument. RESULTS: Of the 24 CPGs evaluated, 10 (42%) were evidence-based. All major burn topics were covered by at least one CPG, but no single CPG addressed all areas important in terms of outcomes. According to the AGREE criteria, 2 CPGs (8%) were strongly recommended, 14 with provisos or alterations (58%) and the rest were not recommended for adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Although existing CPGs for the management of burn may accurately reflect agreed clinical practice, most performed poorly when evaluated for methodological quality. Future CPG efforts addressing these methodological shortcomings would add substantially to the improved management of burned patients.
OBJECTIVES: A number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are available for managing burn injurypatients but clinical practice is highly variable. We report the first steps to trans-contextual adaptation of international burn CPGs to local settings. METHODS: Key clinical topics and questions to be covered in the final guideline were defined and prioritized. Systematic search between 1990 and 2008 retrieved 546 citations, of which 24 were CPGs on the general and intensive care of burn patients. Assessment of the clinical content of CPGs was carried out. Methodological quality of CPGs was evaluated using the AGREE instrument. RESULTS: Of the 24 CPGs evaluated, 10 (42%) were evidence-based. All major burn topics were covered by at least one CPG, but no single CPG addressed all areas important in terms of outcomes. According to the AGREE criteria, 2 CPGs (8%) were strongly recommended, 14 with provisos or alterations (58%) and the rest were not recommended for adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Although existing CPGs for the management of burn may accurately reflect agreed clinical practice, most performed poorly when evaluated for methodological quality. Future CPG efforts addressing these methodological shortcomings would add substantially to the improved management of burned patients.