Literature DB >> 30776060

Factors Associated With High-Quality Guidelines for the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Diseases in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa Molino1, Nathalia Celini Leite-Santos1, Franciele Cordeiro Gabriel1, Sheila Kalb Wainberg1, Luciana Pereira de Vasconcelos2, Rafael Augusto Mantovani-Silva3, Eliane Ribeiro1, Nicolina Silvana Romano-Lieber4, Airton Tetelbom Stein5, Daniela Oliveira de Melo3.   

Abstract

Importance: As the rate of publication of new and sometimes conflicting medical research increases, clinicians rely heavily on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform practice. However, CPGs are of widely variable quality, and there are no existing objective measures to rate the quality of CPGs. Objective: To systematically assess 421 CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, version II (AGREE-II) tool and elucidate the factors associated with quality of CPGs. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 12 websites for CPGs were searched for CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care published between January 1, 2011, and August 30, 2017. The assessment of the quality of CPGs was performed by 3 appraisers using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II instrument. A multiple logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with quality of CPGs. Findings: Of the 421 CPGs reviewed, 23.5% (99) were classified as high quality. Among included guidelines, clarity of presentation (70%) and scope and purpose (61%) had the highest median AGREE-II scores. The domains with the lowest median scores were applicability (22%) and rigor of development (33%). Factors associated with high-quality CPGs included having more than 20 authors (odds ratio, 9.08; 95% CI, 3.35-24.62), development at governmental institutions (odds ratio, 10.38; 95% CI, 2.72-39.60), and reporting funding (odds ratio, 10.34; 95% CI, 4.77-22.39). Year of publication, region, guideline version, and scope were not associated with quality among included CPGs. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care professionals and policymakers should be aware that CPGs in primary care are of widely variable quality, with less than 25% of included CPGs rated as high quality. High-quality CPGs were associated with a higher number of authors, governmental institutions, and the report of funding. Region of origin was not associated with quality of CPGs, which suggests that the improvement of the quality of CPGs should be an international concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30776060     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  12 in total

1.  Evidence-based nutrition guidelines for cancer survivors in Europe: a call for action.

Authors:  Laura Keaver; Christine Houlihan; Niamh O'Callaghan; Amy E LaVertu; Xinge Ding; Fang Fang Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 4.884

Review 2.  Population-Based Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Screening for Quality of Care in Osteoporosis, Current Osteoporosis Reports.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Carolyn J Crandall
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.096

3.  Inclusion of Performance Parameters and Patient Context in the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Heart Failure.

Authors:  Parag Goyal; Ozan Unlu; Peter J Kennel; Ross C Schumacher; Lauren G Gilstrap; Ashok Krishnaswami; Larry A Allen; Mathew S Maurer; Michael W Rich; Anil Makam
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 5.712

4.  Pharmacological treatment of depression: A systematic review comparing clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Authors:  Franciele Cordeiro Gabriel; Daniela Oliveira de Melo; Renério Fráguas; Nathália Celini Leite-Santos; Rafael Augusto Mantovani da Silva; Eliane Ribeiro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Critical appraisal of guidelines for coronary artery disease on dual antiplatelet therapy: More consensus than controversies.

Authors:  Shaozhao Zhang; Huimin Zhou; Xiaodong Zhuang; Daya Yang; Xiuting Sun; Xiangbin Zhong; Xiaoyu Lin; Xun Hu; Yiquan Huang; Xinxue Liao; Zhimin Du
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2019-10-14       Impact factor: 2.882

6.  Over half of clinical practice guidelines use non-systematic methods to inform recommendations: A methods study.

Authors:  Carole Lunny; Cynthia Ramasubbu; Lorri Puil; Tracy Liu; Savannah Gerrish; Douglas M Salzwedel; Barbara Mintzes; James M Wright
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  Critical appraisal of the quality of clinical practice guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Authors:  Xuanlin Li; Xueqing Yu; Yang Xie; Zhenzhen Feng; Yanfang Ma; Yaolong Chen; Jiansheng Li
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-11

8.  Critical Appraisal of Guidelines for Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Yongqiang Fan; Gaoxing Zhang; Zhengzhipeng Zhang; Shaozhao Zhang; Menghui Liu; Yifen Lin; Yiquan Huang; Xiangbin Zhong; Xiaodong Zhuang; Xinxue Liao
Journal:  Glob Heart       Date:  2022-02-23

9.  Quality of clinical practice guidelines for inadequate response to first-line treatment for depression according to AGREE II checklist and comparison of recommendations: a systematic review.

Authors:  Franciele Cordeiro Gabriel; Airton Tetelbom Stein; Daniela Oliveira de Melo; Géssica Caroline Henrique Fontes-Mota; Itamires Benício Dos Santos; Aliandra Fantinell de Oliveira; Renério Fráguas; Eliane Ribeiro
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.006

10.  Critical appraisal of tobacco dependence treatment guidelines.

Authors:  Maguy Saffouh El Hajj; Myriam Jaam; Saba Abdal Salam Sheikh Ali; Rana Saleh; Ahmed Awaisu; Bridget Paravattil; Kyle John Wilby
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2020-09-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.