Ke-Qian Yi1, Ting Yang1, Yan-Min Yang2, Guo-Li Lan1, Li-Ya An1, Yu-Xing Qi1, Hong-Bo Fan3, Yong-Qing Duan4, Da-Li Sun5. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, China. 2. Digestive System Department, People's Hospital of Yuxi, Yuxi, 653100, China. 3. Digestive System Department, People's Hospital of Yuxi, Yuxi, 653100, China. 15825131865@163.com. 4. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, China. 13888967847@139.com. 5. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/Second Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650101, China. sundali2018@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the heterogeneity of procedures in the diagnostic guidelines for acute pancreatitis and to identify gaps limiting knowledge in diagnosing this disease. METHODS: A systematic search of a number of databases was performed to determine the guidelines for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in patients with severe pancreatitis. The guidelines for the diagnosis of severe pancreatitis were evaluated by AGREE II. The Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement (MSRA) was used to assess the guidelines (2015-2020) and extract evidence supporting these recommendations for analysis. RESULTS: Seven diagnostic guidelines for acute pancreatitis were included. Only the 2019 WSES Guidelines for the Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis and the Japanese Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015 had a total score of more than 60%, which is worthy of clinical recommendation. The average scores of the Scope and Purpose domain and the Clarity and Expression domain were the highest at 71.62% and 75.59%, respectively, while the average score of the Applicability area was the lowest at 16.67%. The included guidelines were further analyzed to determine the heterogeneity of the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. The main reasons for the heterogeneity were the citation of low-quality evidence, the presence of far too many indicators for the classification of acute pancreatitis, unclear depictions of the standard, and poorly comprehensive recommendations for the diagnosis of the aetiology in the primary diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, the severity classification, the aetiological diagnosis, and the diagnosis of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of different diagnostic guidelines for severe pancreatitis is uneven. The recommendations are largely based on low-quality evidence, and the guidelines still have much room for improvement to reach a high level of quality. The diagnostic procedures for acute pancreatitis vary widely in different guidelines. There are large differences between them, and resolving the abovementioned reasons would be a very wise choice for guideline developers to revise and upgrade the guidelines in the future.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the heterogeneity of procedures in the diagnostic guidelines for acute pancreatitis and to identify gaps limiting knowledge in diagnosing this disease. METHODS: A systematic search of a number of databases was performed to determine the guidelines for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in patients with severe pancreatitis. The guidelines for the diagnosis of severe pancreatitis were evaluated by AGREE II. The Measurement Scale of Rate of Agreement (MSRA) was used to assess the guidelines (2015-2020) and extract evidence supporting these recommendations for analysis. RESULTS: Seven diagnostic guidelines for acute pancreatitis were included. Only the 2019 WSES Guidelines for the Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis and the Japanese Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015 had a total score of more than 60%, which is worthy of clinical recommendation. The average scores of the Scope and Purpose domain and the Clarity and Expression domain were the highest at 71.62% and 75.59%, respectively, while the average score of the Applicability area was the lowest at 16.67%. The included guidelines were further analyzed to determine the heterogeneity of the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. The main reasons for the heterogeneity were the citation of low-quality evidence, the presence of far too many indicators for the classification of acute pancreatitis, unclear depictions of the standard, and poorly comprehensive recommendations for the diagnosis of the aetiology in the primary diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, the severity classification, the aetiological diagnosis, and the diagnosis of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of different diagnostic guidelines for severe pancreatitis is uneven. The recommendations are largely based on low-quality evidence, and the guidelines still have much room for improvement to reach a high level of quality. The diagnostic procedures for acute pancreatitis vary widely in different guidelines. There are large differences between them, and resolving the abovementioned reasons would be a very wise choice for guideline developers to revise and upgrade the guidelines in the future.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnosis; Guidelines; Severe pancreatitis
Authors: Joseph Watine; Bruno Friedberg; Eva Nagy; Rita Onody; Wytze Oosterhuis; Peter S Bunting; Jean-Christophe Charet; Andrea Rita Horvath Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 8.327
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 A Banks; Thomas L Bollen; Christos Dervenis; Hein G Gooszen; Colin D Johnson; Michael G Sarr; Gregory G Tsiotos; Santhi Swaroop Vege Journal: Gut Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Catherine J Yang; Joseph Chen; Anthony R J Phillips; John A Windsor; Maxim S Petrov Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2014-03-16 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: Ari Leppäniemi; Matti Tolonen; Antonio Tarasconi; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Emiliano Gamberini; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Chad G Ball; Neil Parry; Massimo Sartelli; Daan Wolbrink; Harry van Goor; Gianluca Baiocchi; Luca Ansaloni; Walter Biffl; Federico Coccolini; Salomone Di Saverio; Yoram Kluger; Ernest Moore; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 5.469