X T Zeng1, S Li, K Gong, Z Z Guo, T Z Liu, D L He, X H Wang. 1. Department of Urology, Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and to compare the context of recommendations in order to provide references for clinical application. Methods: We searched databases such as the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and World Health Organization (WHO), PubMed, Embase, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, CBM, and Medlive from their establishment until August 13, 2016, to collect evidence-based guidelines and/or consensus on BPH. Method: Methodological quality of included guidelines was assessed according to the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, and differences and similarities among recommendations were compared. Results: A total of 15 guidelines were included. According to the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, the score of scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of formulate, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence was 72%, 38%, 30%, 58%, 16%, and 40%, respectively. The recommendations of different guidelines were basically similar, only with conflicts in some areas. Conclusions: The quality of included guidelines remains to be unified, the context of them can provide valuable implications for development or improvement.
Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and to compare the context of recommendations in order to provide references for clinical application. Methods: We searched databases such as the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and World Health Organization (WHO), PubMed, Embase, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, CBM, and Medlive from their establishment until August 13, 2016, to collect evidence-based guidelines and/or consensus on BPH. Method: Methodological quality of included guidelines was assessed according to the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, and differences and similarities among recommendations were compared. Results: A total of 15 guidelines were included. According to the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, the score of scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of formulate, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence was 72%, 38%, 30%, 58%, 16%, and 40%, respectively. The recommendations of different guidelines were basically similar, only with conflicts in some areas. Conclusions: The quality of included guidelines remains to be unified, the context of them can provide valuable implications for development or improvement.