W Y Haw1,2, A Al-Janabi1,2, B W M Arents3, L Asfour1, L S Exton4, D Grindlay5, S S Khan1, L Manounah4, H Yen6, C-C Chi6,7, E J van Zuuren8, C Flohr9, Z Z N Yiu1,2. 1. The Dermatology Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. 2. Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3. Skin Patients Netherlands, Nieuwerkerk a/d IJssel, the Netherlands. 4. Clinical Standards Unit, British Association of Dermatologists, London, UK. 5. Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, UK. 6. Department of Dermatology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 7. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 8. Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands. 9. Unit for Population-Based Dermatology Research, St John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College London and Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a critical role in standardizing and improving treatment outcomes based on the available evidence. It is unclear how many CPGs are available globally to assist clinicians in the management of patients with skin disease. OBJECTIVES: To search for and identify CPGs for dermatological conditions with the highest burden globally. METHODS: We adapted a list of 12 dermatological conditions with the highest burden from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019. A systematic literature search was done to identify CPGs published between October 2014 to October 2019. The scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. RESULTS: A total of 226 CPGs were included. Melanoma had the greatest representation in the CPGs, followed by dermatitis and psoriasis. Skin cancers had a relatively high CPG representation but with lower GBD disease burden ranking. There was an uneven distribution by geographical region, with resource-poor settings being under-represented. The skin disease categories of the CPGs correlated weakly with the GBD disability-adjusted life-years metrics. Eighty-nine CPGs did not have funding disclosures and 34 CPGs were behind a paywall. CONCLUSIONS: The global production of dermatology CPGs showed wide variation in geographical representation, article accessibility and reporting of funding. The number of skin disease CPGs were not commensurate with its disease burden. Future work will critically appraise the methodology and quality of dermatology CPGs and lead to the production of an accessible online resource summarizing these findings.
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a critical role in standardizing and improving treatment outcomes based on the available evidence. It is unclear how many CPGs are available globally to assist clinicians in the management of patients with skin disease. OBJECTIVES: To search for and identify CPGs for dermatological conditions with the highest burden globally. METHODS: We adapted a list of 12 dermatological conditions with the highest burden from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019. A systematic literature search was done to identify CPGs published between October 2014 to October 2019. The scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. RESULTS: A total of 226 CPGs were included. Melanoma had the greatest representation in the CPGs, followed by dermatitis and psoriasis. Skin cancers had a relatively high CPG representation but with lower GBD disease burden ranking. There was an uneven distribution by geographical region, with resource-poor settings being under-represented. The skin disease categories of the CPGs correlated weakly with the GBD disability-adjusted life-years metrics. Eighty-nine CPGs did not have funding disclosures and 34 CPGs were behind a paywall. CONCLUSIONS: The global production of dermatology CPGs showed wide variation in geographical representation, article accessibility and reporting of funding. The number of skin disease CPGs were not commensurate with its disease burden. Future work will critically appraise the methodology and quality of dermatology CPGs and lead to the production of an accessible online resource summarizing these findings.
Authors: William T Gattrell; Amrit Pali Hungin; Amy Price; Christopher C Winchester; David Tovey; Ellen L Hughes; Esther J van Zuuren; Keith Goldman; Patricia Logullo; Robert Matheis; Niall Harrison Journal: Res Integr Peer Rev Date: 2022-06-07
Authors: Bernd W M Arents; Esther J van Zuuren; Sofieke Vermeulen; Jan W Schoones; Zbys Fedorowicz Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 11.113