Eddy Ríos1, Pamela Serón, Fernando Lanas, Xavier Bonfill, Eamonn M M Quigley, Pablo Alonso-Coello. 1. aDepartment of Medicine, Research, Capacitation and Management Centre for Evidence-Based Health (CIGES), La Frontera University, Temuco, Chile bIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research (IIB-Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain cDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
SETTING: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should provide healthcare practitioners with the best possible evidence. Their quality, however, is often suboptimal. An evaluation of CPGs for the treatment of esophageal or gastric variceal bleeding (VB) has not been performed to date. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the quality of CPGs for esophageal or gastric VB. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the scientific literature published up to July 2012 to identify and select CPGs related to the management of esophageal or gastric VB. Three independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Standardized scores were calculated for the six domains of each instrument, and the overall agreement among reviewers was assessed on the basis of the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of a total of 23 CPGs identified, 10 were selected. Intraobserver agreement was good (overall intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.956, 95% confidence interval 0.958-0.973). The overall quality of the guidelines varied from low to moderate. Stratified by domains, the quality was good to acceptable in three domains: 'scope and purpose' (78.1%, median 82.3, range 46-100); 'clarity and presentation' (87.2%, median 91.6, range 67-98); and 'editorial independence' (64.1%, median 61.1, range 22-94), but with deficiencies in another three: 'rigor of development' (47.6%, range 28-94), 'stakeholder involvement' (47.5%, median 37, range 18-98) and 'applicability' (25.9% median 13.2, range 1-83). In the overall evaluation, two guidelines were considered 'highly recommended', three, 'recommended with modifications', and five, 'not recommended'. There was a significant improvement in quality over time. CONCLUSION: The overall quality of CPGs for the management of esophageal or gastric VB has improved over time. Although the overall quality was not optimal, two guidelines achieved an excellent rating. A summary of recommendations is provided.
SETTING: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should provide healthcare practitioners with the best possible evidence. Their quality, however, is often suboptimal. An evaluation of CPGs for the treatment of esophageal or gastric variceal bleeding (VB) has not been performed to date. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the quality of CPGs for esophageal or gastric VB. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the scientific literature published up to July 2012 to identify and select CPGs related to the management of esophageal or gastric VB. Three independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Standardized scores were calculated for the six domains of each instrument, and the overall agreement among reviewers was assessed on the basis of the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of a total of 23 CPGs identified, 10 were selected. Intraobserver agreement was good (overall intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.956, 95% confidence interval 0.958-0.973). The overall quality of the guidelines varied from low to moderate. Stratified by domains, the quality was good to acceptable in three domains: 'scope and purpose' (78.1%, median 82.3, range 46-100); 'clarity and presentation' (87.2%, median 91.6, range 67-98); and 'editorial independence' (64.1%, median 61.1, range 22-94), but with deficiencies in another three: 'rigor of development' (47.6%, range 28-94), 'stakeholder involvement' (47.5%, median 37, range 18-98) and 'applicability' (25.9% median 13.2, range 1-83). In the overall evaluation, two guidelines were considered 'highly recommended', three, 'recommended with modifications', and five, 'not recommended'. There was a significant improvement in quality over time. CONCLUSION: The overall quality of CPGs for the management of esophageal or gastric VB has improved over time. Although the overall quality was not optimal, two guidelines achieved an excellent rating. A summary of recommendations is provided.
Authors: Eric Nwachukwu Agbata; Paulina Fuentes Padilla; Ifeoma Nwando Agbata; Laura Hidalgo Armas; Ivan Solà; Kevin Pottie; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2019-04
Authors: Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Ulrich Siering; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Anne Catharina Brockhaus; Ulrike Lampert; Michaela Eikermann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Ulrich Siering; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Anne Catharina Brockhaus; Natalie McGauran; Michaela Eikermann Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Thomas Reiberger; Andreas Püspök; Maria Schoder; Franziska Baumann-Durchschein; Theresa Bucsics; Christian Datz; Werner Dolak; Arnulf Ferlitsch; Armin Finkenstedt; Ivo Graziadei; Stephanie Hametner; Franz Karnel; Elisabeth Krones; Andreas Maieron; Mattias Mandorfer; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic; Florian Rainer; Philipp Schwabl; Vanessa Stadlbauer; Rudolf Stauber; Herbert Tilg; Michael Trauner; Heinz Zoller; Rainer Schöfl; Peter Fickert Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 1.704