Sean K Gorman1, Michelle Ho Chung2, Richard S Slavik3, Peter J Zed4,5, Kerry Wilbur6, Vinay K Dhingra7,8. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Capital District Health Authority, College of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, c/o Rm 2043 Victoria Building, 1276 South Park Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada. sean.gorman@dal.ca. 2. Department of Pharmacy, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada. 3. Pharmacy Department, Interior Health Authority, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, 200-1835 Gordon Drive, Kelowna, BC, V1Y 3H5, Canada. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Capital District Health Authority, College of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, c/o Rm 2043 Victoria Building, 1276 South Park Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax Infirmary, Suite 355 (Room 345), 1796 Summer Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 3A7, Canada. 6. College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar. 7. Intensive Care Unit, Vancouver General Hospital, 855 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. 8. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guideline (CPG) quality assessment is important before applying their recommendations. Determining whether recommendation strength is consistent with supporting quality of evidence is also essential. We aimed to determine quality of critical care pharmacotherapy CPGs and to assess whether high quality evidence supports strong pharmacotherapy recommendations. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966-February 2008), EMBASE (1980-February 2008), National Guideline Clearinghouse (February 2008) and personal files were searched to identify CPGs. Four appraisers evaluated each guideline using the appraisal of guidelines, research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. AGREE assesses 23 items in six domains that include scope/purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity, applicability and editorial independence. Standardized domain scores (0-100%) were determined to decide whether to recommend a guideline for use. One appraiser extracted strong pharmacotherapy recommendations and supporting evidence quality. RESULTS: Twenty-four CPGs were included. Standardized domain scores were clarity [69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62-76%)], scope/purpose [62% (95% CI 55-68%)], rigor of development [51% (95% CI 42-60%)], editorial independence [39% (95% CI 26-52%)], stakeholder involvement [32% (95% CI 26-37%)] and applicability [19% (95% CI 12-26%)]. The proportion of guidelines that could be strongly recommended, recommended with alterations and not recommended was 25, 37.5 and 37.5%, respectively. High quality evidence supported 36% of strong pharmacotherapy recommendations. CONCLUSION: Variation in AGREE domain scores explain why one-third of critical care pharmacotherapy CPGs cannot be recommended. Only one-third of strong pharmacotherapy recommendations were supported by high quality evidence. We recommend appraisal of guideline quality and the caliber of supporting evidence prior to applying recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guideline (CPG) quality assessment is important before applying their recommendations. Determining whether recommendation strength is consistent with supporting quality of evidence is also essential. We aimed to determine quality of critical care pharmacotherapy CPGs and to assess whether high quality evidence supports strong pharmacotherapy recommendations. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966-February 2008), EMBASE (1980-February 2008), National Guideline Clearinghouse (February 2008) and personal files were searched to identify CPGs. Four appraisers evaluated each guideline using the appraisal of guidelines, research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. AGREE assesses 23 items in six domains that include scope/purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity, applicability and editorial independence. Standardized domain scores (0-100%) were determined to decide whether to recommend a guideline for use. One appraiser extracted strong pharmacotherapy recommendations and supporting evidence quality. RESULTS: Twenty-four CPGs were included. Standardized domain scores were clarity [69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62-76%)], scope/purpose [62% (95% CI 55-68%)], rigor of development [51% (95% CI 42-60%)], editorial independence [39% (95% CI 26-52%)], stakeholder involvement [32% (95% CI 26-37%)] and applicability [19% (95% CI 12-26%)]. The proportion of guidelines that could be strongly recommended, recommended with alterations and not recommended was 25, 37.5 and 37.5%, respectively. High quality evidence supported 36% of strong pharmacotherapy recommendations. CONCLUSION: Variation in AGREE domain scores explain why one-third of critical care pharmacotherapy CPGs cannot be recommended. Only one-third of strong pharmacotherapy recommendations were supported by high quality evidence. We recommend appraisal of guideline quality and the caliber of supporting evidence prior to applying recommendations.
Authors: Michael J Murray; Jay Cowen; Heidi DeBlock; Brian Erstad; Anthony W Gray; Ann N Tescher; William T McGee; Richard C Prielipp; Greg Susla; Judith Jacobi; Stanley A Nasraway; Philip D Lumb Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Judith Jacobi; Gilles L Fraser; Douglas B Coursin; Richard R Riker; Dorrie Fontaine; Eric T Wittbrodt; Donald B Chalfin; Michael F Masica; H Scott Bjerke; William M Coplin; David W Crippen; Barry D Fuchs; Ruth M Kelleher; Paul E Marik; Stanley A Nasraway; Michael J Murray; William T Peruzzi; Philip D Lumb Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joan Vlayen; Bert Aertgeerts; Karin Hannes; Walter Sermeus; Dirk Ramaekers Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Peter Germann; Antonio Braschi; Giorgio Della Rocca; Anh Tuan Dinh-Xuan; Konrad Falke; Claes Frostell; Lars E Gustafsson; Philippe Hervé; Philippe Jolliet; Udo Kaisers; Hector Litvan; Duncan J Macrae; Marco Maggiorini; Nandor Marczin; Bernd Mueller; Didier Payen; Marco Ranucci; Dietmar Schranz; Rainer Zimmermann; Roman Ullrich Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-06-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Lionel A Mandell; Richard G Wunderink; Antonio Anzueto; John G Bartlett; G Douglas Campbell; Nathan C Dean; Scott F Dowell; Thomas M File; Daniel M Musher; Michael S Niederman; Antonio Torres; Cynthia G Whitney Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: M R Mayberg; H H Batjer; R Dacey; M Diringer; E C Haley; R C Heros; L L Sternau; J Torner; H P Adams; W Feinberg Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peter Dodek; Sean Keenan; Deborah Cook; Daren Heyland; Michael Jacka; Lori Hand; John Muscedere; Debra Foster; Nav Mehta; Richard Hall; Christian Brun-Buisson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-08-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Steven M Hollenberg; Tom S Ahrens; Djillali Annane; Mark E Astiz; Donald B Chalfin; Joseph F Dasta; Stephen O Heard; Claude Martin; Lena M Napolitano; Gregory M Susla; Richard Totaro; Jean-Louis Vincent; Sergio Zanotti-Cavazzoni Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Annemieke Floor-Schreudering; Peter A G M De Smet; Henk Buurma; Sonia Amini; Marcel L Bouvy Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Kyle John Wilby; Emily Kathleen Black; Claire MacLeod; Matthew Wiens; Tim T Y Lau; Maria A Paiva; Sean Gorman Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2015-04-25