INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review evaluated the rigor of the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). METHODS: The searched sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and specific databases of CPG. Reviewers, organized in triplicate and independently, selected the studies and assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument, which contains six domains for classification. The classification of the CPGs prioritized the domain 3 (developmental rigor) considering: high (score > 60%), moderate (score 30-60%), or low quality (score < 30%). The results were checked for discrepancies and decided by consensus. The interventions were described. Descriptive statistics presented the results. RESULTS: Of the ten CPGs evaluated, five were of high methodological quality, three were of moderate quality, and two of low quality. Three documents were not recommended for use. The domains with the highest scores were scope and purpose (mean = 90.1%) and clarity of presentation (mean = 88.9%). The domains of editorial independence (mean = 41.4%) and applicability (mean = 29.3%) were those with the lowest score. The most cited interventions in CPGs were the nonpharmacological, such as lifestyle interventions, bladder training, or re-education and pelvic floor muscle training. CONCLUSION: Most guidelines showed rigor in development and were recommended for use; however, editorial independence and applicability were domains that need to be improved in these documents. Our findings can guide the choice of CPG for the treatment of urinary incontinence.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review evaluated the rigor of the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). METHODS: The searched sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and specific databases of CPG. Reviewers, organized in triplicate and independently, selected the studies and assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument, which contains six domains for classification. The classification of the CPGs prioritized the domain 3 (developmental rigor) considering: high (score > 60%), moderate (score 30-60%), or low quality (score < 30%). The results were checked for discrepancies and decided by consensus. The interventions were described. Descriptive statistics presented the results. RESULTS: Of the ten CPGs evaluated, five were of high methodological quality, three were of moderate quality, and two of low quality. Three documents were not recommended for use. The domains with the highest scores were scope and purpose (mean = 90.1%) and clarity of presentation (mean = 88.9%). The domains of editorial independence (mean = 41.4%) and applicability (mean = 29.3%) were those with the lowest score. The most cited interventions in CPGs were the nonpharmacological, such as lifestyle interventions, bladder training, or re-education and pelvic floor muscle training. CONCLUSION: Most guidelines showed rigor in development and were recommended for use; however, editorial independence and applicability were domains that need to be improved in these documents. Our findings can guide the choice of CPG for the treatment of urinary incontinence.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical practice guidelines; Systematic review; Urinary incontinence
Authors: Alejandra Bravo-Balado; Mauricio Plata; Carlos G Trujillo; Juan I Caicedo; Adolfo Serrano; Anamaria Ramos; Juan G Cataño Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Kari Bo; Helena C Frawley; Bernard T Haylen; Yoram Abramov; Fernando G Almeida; Bary Berghmans; Maria Bortolini; Chantale Dumoulin; Mario Gomes; Doreen McClurg; Jane Meijlink; Elizabeth Shelly; Emanuel Trabuco; Carolina Walker; Amanda Wells Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: M G Lucas; R J L Bosch; F C Burkhard; F Cruz; T B Madden; A K Nambiar; A Neisius; D J M K de Ridder; A Tubaro; W H Turner; R S Pickard Journal: Actas Urol Esp Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 0.994
Authors: P Abrams; K E Andersson; L Birder; L Brubaker; L Cardozo; C Chapple; A Cottenden; W Davila; D de Ridder; R Dmochowski; M Drake; C Dubeau; C Fry; P Hanno; J Hay Smith; S Herschorn; G Hosker; C Kelleher; H Koelbl; S Khoury; R Madoff; I Milsom; K Moore; D Newman; V Nitti; C Norton; I Nygaard; C Payne; A Smith; D Staskin; S Tekgul; J Thuroff; A Tubaro; D Vodusek; A Wein; J J Wyndaele Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Arjun K Nambiar; Ruud Bosch; Francisco Cruz; Gary E Lemack; Nikesh Thiruchelvam; Andrea Tubaro; Dina A Bedretdinova; David Ambühl; Fawzy Farag; Riccardo Lombardo; Marc P Schneider; Fiona C Burkhard Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 20.096